Preamble

The House met at Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

[Madam Speaker in the Chair]

Madam Speaker: The House will wish to know of the arrangements made for today's sitting following the death of the former Prime Minister, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx. This morning's proceedings on the motion for the Adjournment will go ahead in the normal way. There will be questions at 2.30 pm and an opportunity for statements at 3.30 pm. Immediately after that, there will be tributes to Lord Wilson and it will be proposed that the House then adjourns.

Adjournment of the House

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I believe that the House should not adjourn before hon. Members have considered the important matter of the underfunding of school budgets. Yesterday, the House heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) about school budgets in Devon being underfunded by the Lib-Lab county council, and about the fact that Conservative county councillors there have proposed a motion that the £4 million odd should be restored and have shown the ways and means by which that could be done. That proposal was turned down by the Lib-Lab county councillors in Devon.
The position in Kent should be raised this morning. My hon. Friends representing Kent and I have raised it incessantly. At the risk of boring hon. Members, I shall remind them that the Labour and Liberal Democrat groups on Kent county council at first intended to provide for no increase in school funding for this year, despite knowing that a settlement for an increase in teachers' pay had been rightly approved. That creates an intolerable position for our schools and it has occurred at a time when Kent county council has received a 2 per cent. increase in financial support from the Government, and when the Labour and Liberal Democrat groups have approved a budget that has hit Kent council tax payers with an increase of more than 5 per cent. in their council tax.
When one considers that 2 per cent. increase in Government funding and the fact that council tax payers are contributing another 5 per cent., it is an absolute outrage that schools in our county were confined to budgets that showed no increase to take account of teachers' pay or of inflation. Needless to say, that caused outrage in Kent and the Lib-Labs conceded the point to the extent that they introduced a 1 per cent. increase. That has nevertheless left our schools with problems in relation to their budgets and how they manage their finances. In a small number of cases, those problems could lead to the loss of teaching posts, which is outrageous.
The county council's Conservative group proposed an alternative budget that showed ways in which, by a rearrangement of spending, money could be concentrated on schools, thereby increasing funds to cover the teachers' pay settlement and making up for inflation. That could have reversed the wanton imposition of a £700,000 cut in adult education by the Labour and Liberal Democrat groups and could have kept a fund going for discretionary grants for post-16 education, which the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties have totally cut.
In a neighbouring constituency to mine, we have a case of a young girl who has an exceptional talent in dance. She would normally have looked to the county council for a discretionary grant to develop that talent in her education, but the application was turned down flat by the council on the ground that it has no budget for that. That has never happened in Kent before, but it is what happens when large authorities such as Kent are in the hands of a coalition between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats. What will happen to the education of that talented youngster and the development of her talent? They care not a bit.
Those two groups use the usual range of excuses, saying that it is because of the Government's actions and that it is all so unfair. Originally, I put it down to inexperience, incompetence or a mixture of both. That seemed quite a reasonable answer to their extraordinary behaviour. However, I am coming increasingly to the view that not only is it a conspiracy at the expense of the people of Kent and the education of all our children, but that that conspiracy extends far further. We have heard what has happened in Devon, where budgets have been deliberately underfunded despite the alternative budget presented by experienced Conservative county councillors. Hon. Members will know of case after case of similar goings on in councils up and down the country.
The conspiracy between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats seems to be based on the belief that if they short-change the schools and bleat about Government cuts, parents will rise up and blame the Government. That may have had a little to do with the local election results earlier this month. So on that score it was cynically successful. What is left in the wake of that conspiracy is the wreckage of our youngsters' education—including that talented girl to whom I referred—and pressures on schools that they should not have to face when the money is available. I increasingly think that we are dealing with a political, cynical conspiracy.
What strengthens my view? Recently the accountants for Kent county council announced that there was an underspend of £17 million in the revenue budget for the council, let alone the underspend of £24 million in the capital budget. Although it is now the second month of the financial year, Conservative county councillors in Kent quite properly tabled an amendment asking that £3.8 million of that £17 million underspend—that is all that is required—be put into the school budgets in Kent so that they would know that the funding was available and so that, in the minority of cases, they would not have to take the drastic action of dismissing teachers. That is a sensible solution based on the best for the education of our children in Kent.
A detailed budget was laid out by the Conservative group on Kent county council, but it was curtailed without proper debate and was voted down by the Labour and Liberal Democrat groups.
What happened to the amendment to harness £3.8 million from the £17 million underspend of last year? The Labour and Liberal Democrat groups—it is easy to confuse them given the way in which they carry out their so-called work in Kent—decided that they did not want to debate it. However, they dare not turn it down because it is so logical and is supported by the people of Kent. They decided to filibuster and fob it off to a committee. The next meeting is on 22 June. That means that it will be a month before our schools know whether a solution will be found for their problems.
As you know, Madam Speaker, I am the last to complain about the party politics in which we indulge ourselves from time to time, but we are talking about the education of our children—I mean "our children" because my children attend state schools in Kent, as do the children of other hon. Members up and down the county and the country. We should not play politics with the education of our children and that is what the Labour and Liberal Democrat groups are doing in Kent.
I hope that the Labour and Liberal Democrat spokesmen will roundly condemn what has happened in Kent and that at the very least they will instruct their groups in Kent to look at this matter and put the money that is available into our schools for the education of our children.

Mrs. Diana Maddock: I am sure that hon. Members will join me in sending our sincere sympathies to the friends and family of those who lost their lives or were injured in the tragic coach crash yesterday. I am sure that hon. Members are aware that a coach carrying 29 members of Christchurch Royal British Legion overturned after they had been out for a pleasant day in Wales. I hope that the Leader of the House will ensure that certain matters are looked into before the recess.
I had given notice that I intended to ask a private notice question later today. However, in view of the sad death of a previous Prime Minister, I thought that it would be more appropriate to raise the matter this morning and I thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to do so.
Only two weeks ago I was celebrating VE day in Christchurch with many of those who were involved in the accident. Various questions arise in our minds as a result of the accident. Over some time, questions have been asked in general about coach safety. Often an accident has nothing to do with roadworthiness, but I should like to draw the House's attention to some figures provided last year in answer to parliamentary questions about coach safety. Unacceptable numbers of coaches failed the annual test; in the last year for which I have figures, 73,000 tests were carried out. Initially, there were over 27,000 failures and the final number of failures was over 13,000. I hope that the Minister responsible will look into that now that we have had yet another tragic accident.
Much has been said about seat belts and, at the moment, we do not know exactly what happened yesterday. It would be premature to say what we think happened when we do not know the truth. We hear that there were some seat belts fitted to the coach, but the impact yesterday was such that the roof of the coach was crushed. That raises questions about the strength of the upper structure of our coaches. The coach involved was about nine years old and I hope that the Minister will look at the existing regulations dealing with the strength of coach roofs.
In view of yet another tragic accident, there are three matters that need to be considered. First, we need to know why so many of our coaches fail their annual tests. Secondly, we need to know why the roof of this coach was crushed and, thirdly, we need to know whether seat belts play a role. I know that that was looked at last year and I understand that there are certain difficulties over legislation in Europe.
It is particularly poignant that those who survived the last war have lost their lives in this tragic way and I hope that the Minister will look into the matter with great urgency and set things in motion before the Whitsun recess.

Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Amess. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member wish to speak, or is he just moving around the Chamber?

Mr. David Amess: I am not ready yet.

Madam Speaker: In that case, I shall call Mr. Clappison.

Mr. James Clappison: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on a matter that is of particular importance to my constituents, that is, the future of the assisted places scheme. Currently, 29,000 pupils nationally are helped by the scheme. There is a concentration of places in my constituency, where 411 pupils enjoy its benefits. I admit that not all of them come from my constituency, but a substantial number of them do. In any case, wherever they come from, they are all being educated in my constituency. Also, a number of children from my constituency go to schools outside it to enjoy the benefits of the scheme. Therefore, I am anxious to emphasise the value of the scheme to my constituents and also to highlight its importance nationally.
When we last debated the matter in the House, the Opposition spokesman complained, among other things, that there was little public awareness of the scheme and that not enough members of the public even knew of its existence. He quoted an opinion poll showing that only 40 per cent. of the public had heard of the scheme. Of course, it is a matter of subjective judgment, but I happen to think that 40 per cent. is a rather large proportion of those interviewed in any opinion poll actually being aware of the matter being surveyed.
The Opposition spokesman omitted to mention another opinion poll finding—it may have come from the same poll—relating to public approval of the scheme. The poll showed that of those who were aware of its existence, a substantial majority approved of it. When the figures were broken down by party affiliation, they showed a clear majority of supporters of all parties expressing approval. Indeed, 55 per cent. of Labour party supporters said that they approved of the scheme, while only 27 per cent. said that they disapproved—a clear majority of 2:1.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Does my hon. Friend think it ironic that the Labour party opposes the assisted places scheme, even though it is one of the most egalitarian schemes in education? Did he read the column written by Matthew Parris in The Times today? He pointed out an interesting dichotomy when he said that the Labour party claimed that if the scheme was discontinued, thousands of pounds would be available for the employment of more teachers, yet it failed to understand that the pupils who currently benefit from the scheme would then have to go into the state education sector, so those additional teachers would be required anyway—resulting in no net saving.

Mr. Clappison: I am tempted to say that great minds think alike, but I am not sure who the great minds are in this case because my hon. Friend has anticipated some of the points that I had intended to make—and in particular my next point, which he put so succinctly.
It is the supporters of the Labour party who benefit particularly and considerably from the scheme. Why does the Labour party want to do away with the scheme when so many of its supporters benefit from it? Left-wing commentators and Labour Members have tried to construct an elaborate sociological analysis to show that it is not Labour party supporters who benefit from the scheme. One survey quoted described those who benefit as culturally middle class. Other people have said that they are middle-class, single-parent families—horror of horrors.
That may or may not be so, but it is certainly true that those on the left wing of academic politics are far more inclined than Conservative Members to pin labels on people. I am not especially interested in the cultural, social or any other feature of the backgrounds of those who benefit from the scheme. The important point for the Conservative party is that they are people who would not otherwise have had the opportunity to benefit. It should be clearly understood that the scheme benefits people whose incomes are not especially high by today's standards—some 80 per cent. have below average income. I was told yesterday in a parliamentary answer that 42 per cent. of parents get free places on the scheme because their income is less than £9,300. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that that is a very moderate income. Therefore, the sociological arguments do not carry much weight.
The Labour party's economic arguments are not much better. During Education questions yesterday, Labour Members said that the scheme was a way of propping up foundering private schools. That argument has been used before and conveniently ignores the fact that many of the schools in the scheme are extremely popular and massively oversubscribed. In my constituency, about 350 of the 411 places are offered by the Haberdasher's schools for boys and for girls. I am delighted to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who is in the Chamber, was educated at Haberdasher's. Indeed, a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have attended that eminent institution.
My personal knowledge of the Haberdasher's schools is that they could fill their assisted places many times over with pupils whose parents could afford to pay the full fees. However, the schools value the assisted places for a number of important reasons and they are prepared to play a full part in the scheme. The argument of Labour Members simply does not hold water. I could cite a list of schools taking part in the scheme—St. Paul's, Westminster and Dulwich college are a few examples of schools in reasonably close proximity to my constituency—that are of such quality that they attract huge numbers of applicants, so it is certainly not a case of propping up foundering schools.
I come now to the argument about the cost of the scheme, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) just mentioned. The Opposition spokesman said yesterday that if the scheme were scrapped, state schools could employ an additional 5,000 teachers. That figure is wrong because the entire cost of the scheme could not possibly provide that number of teachers. It was a gross underestimate of the cost of providing a teacher. The Opposition also ignore the fact that pupils being educated under the scheme would have to be educated in the maintained sector if the scheme were scrapped.
We need to examine the true difference between the cost of an assisted place and the cost of a place in the maintained sector. That has varied over the years and sometimes the difference in cost has not been very great. Even when there is a difference in cost, as there is currently, I believe that that cost is well worth paying to provide choice, opportunity and diversity in our education system. I am sure that if that view was put to the fair-minded people who were interviewed in the opinion poll to which I referred earlier, most of them would agree.
Assisted places are a welcome contribution to educational choice and diversity in my constituency. Those who have the benefit of such places, whom I meet through my surgeries and otherwise, tell me of the importance and value that they put on those places. They are provided in addition to a great deal of other educational diversity and excellence in my constituency. More than 6,000 pupils attend grant-maintained schools, with some of them coming from as far afield as Islington. Many of those schools are excellent and are receiving good reports from Ofsted.
The Opposition have put the assisted places scheme under direct threat. It is ironic that their only firm pledge on education—out of all the pledges that they could have made—is to abolish the assisted places scheme. That is a shame and it is very sad. Indeed, in many ways it is out of keeping with the old Labour tradition of trying to create the opportunity of a good education for people who would not otherwise have received one.
The Opposition's attitude is also ironic in view of the number of people on low incomes who benefit from the scheme. When the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) proposed putting VAT on school fees, which would have affected people on higher incomes who could afford to pay the full fees, there was an outcry and the proposal was rapidly withdrawn. The Labour party will not withdraw its pledge to abolish the scheme, which helps people on lower incomes, which is sad. Indeed, if that policy were ever implemented, it would be sad for future generations on lower incomes in my constituency, who would have the opportunity of attending certain schools taken away from them.
In future generations, if Opposition Members were in a position to carry out their intentions, brothers and sisters of children who obtain assisted places would lose the opportunity to go to the same school as their siblings. Opposition Members would deprive children of opportunities that they would otherwise enjoy. That would be rather a shame, as I am sure my constituents would agree.
I put on record my support for the assisted places scheme. The opposition of Labour Members to the scheme deserves to be highlighted. People on lower incomes and Labour supporters, 2:1 of whom are in favour of the scheme, have a right to know that the Labour party is bent on taking away their opportunities for no good reason, as I hope that I have demonstrated. Its arguments are not the real reason for the party's hostility to the assisted places scheme. The real reason is sheer ideological hostility towards independent education, which in the case of assisted places would take away valuable opportunities that the Conservative Government have provided.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I assure the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) that as someone who failed his 11-plus, known in Scotland as the quallies, I shall certainly not be discussing my early academic career.
Before the House adjourns, I hope that the Leader of the House, with his customary courtesy, will attempt to deal with a couple of questions about the Brent Spar

incident and the Greenpeace occupation of the installation. The right hon. Gentleman will not be able to answer the questions himself, but I should be grateful if he would pass them to his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Trade and Industry.
I should like to ask about the Government's proposed framework policy document on abandonment programmes for offshore installations. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure consultation with interested parties in Scotland, such as the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, which have most to lose or gain from an abandonment proposal?
Will the right hon. Gentleman pass on my concern about the recent decision of the Minister for Industry and Energy to relax to 5 m the minimum water clearance above any platform remaining in situ in the North sea, compared with the 75 m currently obtaining but applied in only one case so far? That could have a disastrous effect for our fishermen. This morning's edition of The Herald carries a large article on the Greenpeace occupation of Brent Spar, which is entitled:
Oil Company Reclaims Brent Spar".
That reclamation was achieved with the assistance of Grampian police officers. The article says:
Mr. Heinz Rothermund, Shell's managing director, said Greenpeace and other organisations pointed to problems and Shell respected that.
Many things were being done world-wide thanks to the fact that problems had been pointed out, but as industrial organisations they were paid to find solutions and compromise and evaluations were required.
Mr. Rothermund is speaking with a forked tongue because the conduct of his company in the gulf of Mexico is entirely different from its proposed conduct in the disposal of Brent Spar. I accuse the company, its board of directors and senior executives of sheer hypocrisy. It has removed completely 20 installations from the gulf of Mexico. It is American federal law to remove redundant installations from such waters.
Shell has had to comply with American law, but because of the British Government's lax implementation of part I of the Petroleum Act 1987 such companies, with Shell leading, will leave their installations in the North sea, to the detriment of our fishermen. Fishermen have been treated very badly in this affair. The Government are accused of adopting an astonishingly lenient approach to the removal of such structures. Brent Spar should be brought ashore, dismantled and its recyclable elements recycled. Shell is trying to get away with a cheap option. The Government's failure in that regard and the disgraceful behaviour of Shell's senior executives provoked the Greenpeace occupation of Brent Spar.
Brent Spar is an old, redundant oil storage tank, which from the sea bed to the surface extends to some 109 m. It contains a dreadful toxic chemical mix that Shell cannot analyse but is happy to put into what it says are safe deep waters. For such materials, there is no such thing as a safe deep-water burial. In a written answer to a question that I tabled, the Minister for Industry and Energy said:
In accordance with section 4 of the Petroleum Act 1987 the President of the Board of Trade approved the Brent Spar abandonment programme on 20 December 1994."—[Official Report, 15 May 1995; Vol. 260, c. 27.]
He went on to claim that environmental considerations and possible interference with navigation and fisheries had been analysed and there had been a comparative assessment of risk, technical feasibility and cost.
The question of cost looms large in abandonment programmes. The Government encourage international oil and gas companies to leave their structures—or many of them—in place. They are not, however, encouraging such practice in the southern areas of the North sea, where the waters are shallower and the technical difficulties of removing the structures are much less complicated. Installations should be removed from those waters and the beds should be swept clean so that our fishermen, who have fished the waters for hundreds of years, may return to fish their traditional fishing grounds. That is especially important given what is happening elsewhere in the fishing industry.
Shell Expro, aided and abetted by the Government, is seeking to dodge its obligations. Coming from a fishing family, I obviously have a special interest in the matter, but I hasten to assure you, Madam Speaker, and the House that no money whatever is involved, just strong family ties. A brother of mine is currently fishing off the northern coast of Norway on one of our freezer trawlers. Shell Expro has chosen the cheap option for dumping the huge Brent Spar installation. It gave the game away in a publication which it produced some time ago, in which it said:
Onshore scrapping would require some 360,000 man-hours of work. The complexity and labour intensive nature of the operations means that they would be very costly and expose personnel to greater risk.
Yet in the gulf of Mexico, Shell has removed more than 900 installations from those admittedly shallow waters. Some of the structures in the gulf of Mexico are akin to some of those on our continental shelf, such as the type in Norwegian waters. That is what the company is concerned about. Bringing the installation ashore would cost 360,000 man hours of work whereas, to use the company's words:
The environmental impact of the sunken Spar will be limited and contained. The site of the sinking is likely to be in water over 2,000 metres deep and more than 240 kms from land.
From my knowledge of the fishing industry, I can tell the House that no trawler anywhere in the north Atlantic fishes in water that deep, but the eventual dispersal of toxic materials will damage marine life.
The document states that dispersal at sea—the dumping in deep water—will require 52,000 man hours of work. That difference in man hours is obviously focusing the minds of Shell's directors and chief executives, who are saving money, having made many millions of pounds out of the offshore industry. It has been estimated, incidentally, that bringing the installation ashore would cost about £46 million. Since the mid-1980s, Shell has been involved in a £1.3 billion renovation programme of its offshore operations, so £46 million would not figure very largely in its costs.
I have argued ever since enactment of the Petroleum Act 1987 that such structures should be completely removed from the marine environment. The late Alick Buchanan-Smith was a fine man and a fair-minded adversary who was popular in Scotland and, indeed, south of the border. As a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Petroleum Bill I told him—I thought that he would be here for many more years—that, while I was in the House, I would campaign for the complete removal of such structures, which is permitted under part I of the 1987 Act, which he steered through Committee.
The Government have failed the people of Scotland by their refusal to ensure that installations are removed. We are talking about as many as 20 or 30 a year during the

next few years, as there are more than 200 in our waters. Contrast our Government's attitude with the American legislative view and the way in which the Norwegians handle such matters.
There is hypocrisy in Shell's actions. The company behaves one way in our waters but, because American federal law forces it to behave in another way, it complies with that law in the gulf of Mexico. The Norwegian Government said that they wanted an installation similar to Brent Spar—N.V. Frigg—brought ashore for dismantling and recycling. If it is good enough for the Norwegians and their fishermen, why not for Scotland and its fishermen?
Greenpeace has informed me that complete removal of the installation would cost £46 million, which represents only 3.5 per cent. of the money that Shell is spending in the Brent field. We must remember that Shell has assets of more than $11 billion. My fear is that, if Shell is allowed to get away with this unsavoury decision, an unfortunate precedent will be established for others to follow.
Hamilton Oil and Gas demonstrated what should be done plainly enough by the complete removal of the Forbes platform. It plans to remove completely the bigger Esmond platform and ancillary facilities, so it can be done. We shall have to face up to that fact when the time comes for those 200-odd structures to be abandoned. They will be removed from the central and southern North sea and they should be removed from northern waters.
I come from a fishing family and I fully support the view of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation on the matter. In a recently published document, it states:
Politicians of all Parties will hopefully be reasonably familiar with the long history of difficulty which has been the lot of our Fishermen in competing for access to the waters of the UK Continental Shelf with the North Sea Oil and Gas Industry and with our policy that our forbearance and co-operation with the Oil Operators should be recognised by the acceptance of both them and the Government of an obligation to remove entirely from the sea all installations which cease to be in use. That standpoint has regrettably never been accepted as a general principle and in recent years changes in International Law, heavily influenced by the UK Government, have reached the stage where partial removal of offshore installations will be permitted upon their Abandonment".
Alick Buchanan-Smith said that, where possible, such structures should be removed. He pointed out to me that concrete structures are enormously difficult to move, which I accept; it is a fact of life. The Norwegians are finding similar difficulty with the removal of some of their massive concrete structures, but there has been genuine consultation between the Norwegian Government and associations representing Norwegian fishermen who fish in their waters. There has not been any genuine consultation between the UK Government and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations or, more importantly in this regard, with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation.
The issue is very important and it is causing a great deal of concern in Scotland, not merely among Greenpeace activists but in small fishing communities where there are no, or very few, alternative employment opportunities.
I am sure that the Leader of the House would agree that the fishermen have played the game. They said that it was important for oil and gas to be brought ashore. It has helped the Shetland economy enormously over the years,


as it has also helped elsewhere—one thinks of Orkney, Fraserburgh and Peterhead and, indeed, of Aberdeen. Many thousands of people are working in the industry.
In my constituency, two rigs are being converted. I hope to see as many as 11 rigs coming into the firth of Clyde in the next two years for conversion work. No one has to tell me, or our fishermen, how important the offshore oil and gas industry is and has been to our economy. We could debate how the money has had to be spent—on the massive number of unemployed people—but that is another story.
Part I of the 1987 Act should be used more radically to ensure the complete removal not merely of the installations but of redundant pipeline networks. They, too, prevent fishermen from fishing the waters that they and their fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers fished.
Peter Morrison—a Minister who followed on from the late Alick Buchanan-Smith—said in a speech in Aberdeen, which was widely publicised in Scotland, that the abandonment programmes for the installations could generate many thousands of jobs along the east coast of Scotland and later on the west coast. He said that redundant shipyard workers and others might find employment in such programmes, but that simply has not happened.
The American experience is entirely different. More than 900 installations have been completely removed from the gulf of Mexico. We have the shabby sight of Shell, BP and the other companies that used those natural resources to make massive profits seedily dodging their obligations to other users of the maritime environment, particularly fishermen.
Following enactment of the Petroleum Act, I had hoped that we could say to our fishermen that one day they could fish those waters again. I hoped that the seas would be swept clean of structures and redundant pipeline networks, and that they would be able to drop their gear on to the sea bed without it becoming snagged, as often happens today, by materials from the hugely important offshore industry.
I hope that the consultation exercise that the Government are planning will be genuine, and not the kind of thing that the Scottish Office—under its present regime—undertakes. I hope that there will be genuine consultation with fishermen and others so that we can decide which installations may have to stay in place, such as the concrete structures. I hope that a radical implementation of the 1987 Act will mean that other structures can be removed and brought ashore in the interests of our fishermen. They deserve nothing less.

Mr. David Amess: I am glad to be called, Madam Speaker, as I felt earlier as though I had been caught out making a false bid at an auction.
I join colleagues in paying tribute to the noble Lord Wilson of Rievaulx who dominated political affairs in this country when I was a child. In every sense he was a great politician.
I should like the House to consider four matters, the first of which is identity cards. Some years ago, I successfully moved a ten-minute Bill to allow the introduction of voluntary identity cards. That was the first occasion on which the House did not oppose the concept of identity cards. I proposed a system of voluntary identity cards because I felt that if the House and the country were not prepared for a compulsory system, a voluntary system would be better than nothing.
People accept that they must have birth certificates and death certificates, but I cannot understand why the bit in between is not recorded. When we knock on doors—as we recently did during the local elections—we find that the general public are concerned about crime. There is no doubt in my mind that identity cards will help in the fight against crime. I shall be astonished if it is true that new Labour is going to oppose the introduction of such cards.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the 1951 Conservative Government scrapped identity cards as the last remnant of the socialist Government that had been in power from 1945 to 1951?

Mr. Amess: My difficulty is that I was born in 1952, so I cannot personally recall that. I am looking to the future, and I do not think that what happened in 1951 is paramount in the minds of the British public at the moment.

Mr. Barry Field: Does my hon. Friend agree that even en ventre de sa mère he was a Tory?

Mr. Amess: There is no answer to that. The Conservative Government have not claimed credit for the national lottery, but I hope that we will claim credit for the sensible introduction of a compulsory identity card.
My second point is well timed, because I see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is present. The Fenchurch Street line is notorious for offering a poor and inadequate service to my constituents and others in Essex. I am accused of being obsessed with my constituency, but it seems that Opposition Members and Front-Bench spokesmen are becoming increasingly obsessed with it. They have recently visited Basildon to talk about the privatisation of the Fenchurch Street line. They have not done so in an honest and realistic fashion, and have spread things that are not true. I deplore the way in which they have recently been scaremongering in my constituency.
My constituents could not care less who runs the Fenchurch Street line so long as the trains arrive on time, the carriages are comfortable, the fares are reasonable and the line's operators are mindful of security. That is what they are concerned about, and the privatisation of the Fenchurch Street line will deliver those things.
I must say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that I am not entirely happy with the procedures that have been followed hitherto regarding precisely who is being allowed to tender for the line. The wild rumour is that there will be a management buy-out. As a local Member of Parliament, I would not be in favour of that. Some hon. Friends and I took part in a notorious journey five years ago with the present chairman of British Rail, when we were told to catch a train at the wrong time at a station at which the train did not arrive. During that journey, the chairman did not want to talk about services.
I believe in leading from the front, and I do not think that the present management of British Rail can reassure my constituents that they are the best people to run the railway line. I am totally in favour of the privatisation of the Fenchurch Street line, but I am not in favour of a management buy-out, which I believe will be an unfortunate method of embarking upon privatisation. Many other companies are more capable of delivering a fine service to my constituents, and they should be treated in a fair and even-handed fashion.
The third of my four points concerns the concept of education, which some of my hon. Friends have mentioned this morning. I have set myself a target in the past year of visiting every educational establishment in my constituency. That may seem an easy task, but there are 54 of them. I am delighted to tell the House that I have only three more to visit.
Although I shall wait until the end of my visits to produce a paper on how education in Basildon has shaped up in the past year, I wish to take this opportunity to pay a warm tribute to all the people involved in education in my constituency. Some weeks ago, the heads of the schools in my constituency met the Secretary of State for Education, and described to my right hon. Friend the issues that were concerning them. All of them welcomed the constructive debate that took place.
Only last Thursday I was privileged to present 51 certificates at Basildon college at the culmination of the college's adult learners' week. It was a moving event, at which 51 people were presented with certificates for achieving great things. They were not getting degrees from Oxford or Cambridge universities, but the awards were every bit as good as any other award that I have been privileged to hand out.
The House needs to concentrate on parenting. This is a difficult subject, and it is a difficult message for any politician to deliver. The majority of parents do a wonderful job for their children, but there is no doubt that some parents need help to understand the full responsibilities of what it entails to have children. The problems that hon. Members hear in their surgeries—on housing, education, crime or general welfare—can all be traced back to problems in parenting. I hope that my party will take that fact on board. The Opposition are always setting up commissions and two years down the line we get some paper on them. I hope that my party will now embark on a national campaign to deliver some sort of assistance in parenting.
I have an axe to grind about nursery education. The Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), and I share the same county council—Essex county council—which is trying to deliver nursery education. That is all well and good but, as I have two children who were born in September, I want something done about rising fives. The current demand for nursery education, apart from the problems faced by parents who must go to work, encapsulates the difficulties that some people experience in coping with the responsibility of being parents. I hope that the House will consider carefully how we can put right the failures of past Governments, past teaching methods and past liberal attitudes, and ensure that every couple who decide to have children accept that that decision brings huge responsibilities.
Some hon. Members may think that this is an unfortunate occasion on which to be partisan but I feel that I must comment on new and old Labour. The crux of

my remarks concerns hung councils. I am pleased to see in his place my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir. M. Neubert) because his constituency makes up a third of the London borough of Havering, which has a hung council. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House shares with me Essex county council, which is a hung council. As from last Thursday, my constituency, which shares the local authority of Basildon with my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), also has a hung council.
Having read the election addresses carefully, I feel that many socialist candidates who stood under the ticket of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties were deceiving the general public for various reasons. Essex county council, which has been a hung council for two years, has been an absolute disaster and people in Essex are rapidly regretting it. With no consultation whatever, it has thrown out community care, which had been well established by the Conservatives in consultation with six of the bodies involved. As a result, the constituencies of many of my Essex colleagues are now suffering from bed-blocking. People cannot get the right accommodation; waiting lists for operations are getting longer; and waiting times in hospitals are constantly increasing.
Never mind new or old Labour, it is about time that they and the Liberal Democrats accepted responsibility when they are in power. Given the number of county and district councils that they control and European seats which they occupy, they can no longer blame the Government but must accept responsibility for their inadequacies. What they have done in Essex is wicked.

Sir Michael Neubert: My hon. Friend has good reason to be personally aggrieved at the activities of certain prominent Labour personalities on Havering council. Is not one unfortunate consequence of hung councils and coalition politics that they allow minority parties access to public funds, which are used in anti-Government and therefore effectively party political propaganda, as has happened in Havering? To explain away the consequences of its overspending, Havering council implied, with widespread publicity, that Government grant had been cut by £17 million. When that is combined with the development of a machine at the town hall and investment of £500,000 a year—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Many hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye in the debate. Interventions are supposed to be brief and to the point.

Sir Michael Neubert: With that investment, personality cults develop, such as we saw in the last days of the Greater London council at county hall across the river. Does not a danger to democracy lie in all that?

Mr. Amess: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. What is happening in Havering council is causing great distress to many residents. I am sure that they voted for candidates thinking that they would enjoy good, sensible local government, and the result has been far from that. I thank my hon. Friend for the sympathy that he offered me about a particular difficulty. Unfortunately, some Basildon socialists work for Havering authority. For instance, the deputy chief executive used to be the leader of Basildon district council. I agree with every word that my hon. Friend said.
The cuts by socialist-controlled Essex county council in selective school transport are a disgrace and have been made for reasons of pure dogma. County councillor David Rex describes the ruling as
totally divisive and unfair. If children gain places by their own merit at one of our Grammar Schools they should not suffer discrimination because their parents cannot pay for them to get there. Even if a contribution is made to travelling expenses to parents who receive income support or family credit, many other families will still be unable to meet travelling costs and their children will be deprived of the opportunity which their ability and industry has given them".
My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) and I served together on Redbridge council, where we retained an excellent grammar school. Southend has four grammar schools; Colchester has two; and Chelmsford has two. They are all excellent. The socialists on the council have told us that the supposed savings from cutting free school transport will be £1.6 million over 10 years, and the treasurer revised that costing to £1.3 million. However, it has been completely forgotten that Southend will be granted unitary status, so the idea that there will be savings is nonsense. I happen to know that the socialists are being overwhelmed with protests from local parents and I entirely agree with those protests.
When there were difficulties with the policing which Essex county council provided at Brightlingsea, the socialists—whether the alliance or new or old Labour—made some disgraceful statements, which made the job of policing even more difficult.
My final point is about the circumstances in which I find myself on Basildon district council, which covers my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay. On the Thursday before last, we had local elections. I now have eight Conservative district councillors in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay has six Conservative district councillors in hers. In total, there are 14 Conservatives on Basildon district council, 16 Labour and 12 alliance councillors.
When the Labour and alliance candidates were campaigning during the local elections, it was drawn to my attention that there did not appear to be much mention of local issues. Local candidates said that they would be in a position to do something about national taxation, the national health service and the defence of the country. That was dishonest. They should have campaigned on local issues. Of course, the electors have rapidly been disappointed.
I live in the Nethermayne ward. I went to the Towngate theatre to hear the results declared and, when the Nethermayne result was declared, I witnessed the leader of the Labour group, whom I defeated in the general election, and the leader of the alliance group, whom I also defeated in the general election, hug one another—and the result meant that an alliance councillor had been elected. It occurs to me that, far from there being a hung council, it had already been agreed that Labour and alliance would share power. It happens all the time.
Alliance councillors are often so gutless that they abstain on issues, but let there be no doubt about it—new Labour, for which I have no respect, old Labour, for

which I have every respect, and the alliance party, for which I have no respect, have gone into coalition in Basildon.
I intend, for the remaining time of this Parliament, to take every opportunity to bring to the House's attention the consequences of socialist misrule by Basildon district council, socialist misrule by Essex county council and socialist misrule in Europe. I intend to ensure that, as a result, the general public, when they are given the opportunity to vote in a general election, do not make the mistake of being deceived and electing the horror of a socialist Government.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Eight hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye in the time remaining in the debate. If the speeches are as long as the last two, someone will be disappointed.

Mr. George Mudie: Before the House adjourns, I have the opportunity to mention a disturbing case of Government inactivity and insensitivity on an important matter. I hope that the Leader of the House will return to his seat at some point, because he is very much the human face of the Government and I would not wish to miss the opportunity to make the case directly.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): As the hon. Gentleman observed, I was about to take a short break but, in view of his comments, he has made it impossible for me to leave for the moment.

Mr. Mudie: I am grateful that the Lord President is staying in his seat, and I hope that neither his situation nor my speech is too uncomfortable.
The important matter to which I refer is the fact that more than 3,000 people suffering from haemophilia are infected with the hepatitis C virus, as a result of being given contaminated blood. For those people in the Chamber who do not know the effect of the hepatitis C virus, it attacks the liver and is potentially life-threatening. Although there is an uncertain medical prognosis, current medical opinion estimates that as many as 80 per cent. of those infected will develop chronic liver disease. Between 10 and 20 per cent. of those people will develop cirrhosis of the liver and many of those, sadly, will develop liver cancer. The progression to severe liver disease can take between 20 and 40 years. Many people with haemophilia have already been infected for more than 20 years.
In 1986, clotting factor concentrates were heat-treated to deactivate the acquired immune deficiency syndrome virus. By coincidence, but largely unrecognised at the time, it had the same effect on the hepatitis C virus. In 1991—good news, in a way, for those suffering from hepatitis C—a test for that virus, for HCV antibody, was developed. The bad news was that, as the haemophiliac population began to be tested, it became apparent, incredibly, that almost everyone suffering from haemophilia who had been treated with clotting factor concentrates before 1986 was infected with the hepatitis C virus.
The Government—I praise them and I praise the Prime Minister especially—acted with regard to those with the AIDS virus. Through the Macfarlane Trust, Government


financial help is available to haemophiliac AIDS virus patients and their families, and more than £14 million has been given out in addition to special grants of more than £66 million.
Those are the facts. It is against that background that the Haemophilia Society is campaigning straightforwardly, and I hope understandably, for similar arrangements to be made regarding haemophiliacs who contracted the HCV virus—the hepatitis C virus—to those made regarding haemophiliacs who contracted the AIDS virus from contaminated blood through the national health service.
Everyone accepts the many similarities between haemophiliacs with HCV and haemophiliacs with the AIDS virus, and it is difficult to envisage how the Government can long resist the argument to give more equitable treatment.
I shall list some of the similarities. The route of infection for both HIV and HCV was contaminated blood given as part of NHS treatment. The infection for both viruses took place before the date in 1986 when heat treatment was introduced. Like the AIDS virus, the hepatitis C virus will place additional medical, social and financial burdens on those who already had a life-threatening condition. All will have to cope with the uncertainty and anxiety of not knowing whether they will be one of the 20 per cent. who will experience cirrhosis or the smaller number who may suffer early death from liver cancer.
All will have the worry of possible transmission to sexual partners, transmission to an unborn child and transmission to other members of the household through blood to blood contact. All will experience difficulties in obtaining life insurance, or can receive it only at prohibitive rates or for a short time. Many may suffer disruption to their education and employment as they become ill and some will lose their jobs and their earnings as a result of the illness. Some people, as a result of the ignorance of others, will be confronted by discrimination and ostracism in the workplace, in school and in society in general.
In spite of those similarities, it is accepted that the two cases are not the same. As Baroness Cumberlege said in the other place—somewhat tactlessly, I felt—those with the AIDS virus
were all expected to die very shortly."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 March 1995; Vol. 562, c. 864.]
She also outlined other social differences, but nothing on a scale on which to base a strong case for withholding help from those with the hepatitis C virus.
What do the Haemophilia Society and those suffering from the hepatitis C virus ask for? They ask for three things. First, they ask for an across-the-board ex gratia payment, on the same basis as that paid to those haemophiliacs suffering from the AIDS virus, to all those infected with hepatitis through contaminated blood products—not compensation, but an ex gratia payment on the same basis. Such a payment will avoid the spectacle of 3,000 people, already unfortunate enough to have the problem of haemophilia, pursuing the Government through the courts, arguing a case about being treated with infected blood in the national health service.
Secondly, the Haemophilia Society wants those who become ill and the dependants of those who die to have access to the hardship fund of the Macfarlane Trust on the same basis as infected haemophiliacs. Thirdly, as a

matter of urgency, it has requested that payments should be made to those who are already ill and to the dependants of those who have died. It has been put to the Department of Health that the deeds of the Macfarlane Trust—set up to assist those haemophiliacs with the AIDS virus—could be changed to extend the work of that excellent and well-respected trust to deal with the larger but similar group of people now suffering from the hepatitis C virus.
The Haemophilia Society would also like those people to be offered many other things, including better counselling and support. But I am aware of your request, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I must cut my remarks short in fairness to the many other hon. Members who want to speak. I would regret it if my case were harmed by either my presentation or the lack of time available to me. If either were so, it would be unforgivable.
Those of us who are fortunate in health and with children similarly blessed can only marvel at the courage and strength of those who, born with the terrible disease of haemophilia, are struck so unfairly by the second dreadful virus, hepatitis C. I cannot see how anyone other than a blinkered Treasury bureaucrat would not feel that some assistance should be offered to those people.
I remember that it was the Prime Minister who stopped the unseemly wrangle over help to haemophiliacs with AIDS. He acted with compassion and purpose. I hope that the Leader of the House will ask the Prime Minister to extend that compassion and rediscover that sense of purpose to help those who are now asking for his assistance.
If anyone doubts the awfulness of the disease and its effect, let me conclude by quoting from a letter from one of my constituents, who wrote:
As parents we have seen our 13-year-old son suffer with haemophilia but to give him this virus as well, I feel very depressed.
I went to a meeting this year about the hepatitis and I felt the sky coming down round me as the people were medical and parents and they were talking about liver transplants and bleeding in the stomach, the side-effects of the drug Inferon. I came out the meeting very shocked.
Please help us. I am sorry I cannot put it over how desperate we are, but we love our son and I feel very scared over my boy's future.
I appeal to the House and the Leader of the House to give those parents, that youngster and all those in the same circumstances some help and some hope.

Mr. David Shaw: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), because I know that we must seriously address the issue that he has raised. Some constituents recently approached me about the same problem. I hope that it can be dealt with on an all-party basis, because it strikes me that it is something that has gone wrong in our society. It should not be a party political issue, but the Government of the day must address it. It is clear that a great deal of injustice is easily capable of being suffered, if that has not already happened. I hope that we will address that issue in a proper debate in the House in the weeks ahead.
I should like to raise a number of issues affecting my constituency as well as one or two national interests that should be considered by the House before it adjourns. Education in Kent has already been referred to today by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), so I need not repeat everything he said.
As I have gone around the schools in my constituency, I have heard concern expressed about the way in which the county council, with the authority of the Liberal-Labour group controlling it, has issued to those schools a number of newsletters which lack any form of independent financial analysis and are extremely biased. Although the director of education and certain politicians who are playing political games with our schools suggested that the schools should send out those newsletters to parents, most of the schools in my area, if not all of them, have resisted that recommendation. They have refused because they have argued that the documents were political, misleading, offered no real accounting sense and sought to make political capital out of what we all accept has been a tight financial settlement for local government. The settlement does, however, allow schools to be funded properly, provided that local authorities are willing to do that and to be more efficient. I am concerned at the way in which the Liberal-Labour group on Kent county council is misusing its position of power and is not acting in the interests of my constituents, in particular, those who have children at school.
Last year, the county council underspent by £17 million. That happens to many county councils, because although they plan for a certain amount of expenditure, some of that spending is not required, for whatever reason. The Liberal-Labour group has refused to apply any of that money or to use any of the consequential underspend that may result this year on funding schools. As a consequence, schools in my constituency have not received the full amount to which they are entitled, which is a tragedy. Kent county council has the necessary money and could plan its expenditure to make it available to the schools, but it has refused to do so. It is playing a political football game with the schools.
Not every school in my constituency is experiencing such financial difficulties, because those that are grant-maintained operate more efficiently. Many of them have greatly increased the number of teaching assistants in their schools because they are better managers of their finances than other schools. One of the results of the politicisation of education in Kent may be more applications for grant-maintained status. I am sure that the House would consider that to be entirely appropriate in the circumstances. Just because Kent county council has become Liberal-Labour controlled, we cannot allow it to play political football with our children's education. That is unacceptable.
We should also debate as soon as possible the channel tunnel rail link proposals. Although that matter is being dealt with by a Committee of the House—so I will not go into a lot of detail—certain important issues should be discussed by the House. The Committee considering the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill seems to be having difficulty in considering the financial viability of the channel tunnel rail link, let alone the financial viability of the channel tunnel. That is extremely important to my constituents because, if massive amounts of subsidy were given to either the rail link or the channel tunnel, that would affect Dover port and the ferry industry, which still employ 6,500 people in my constituency and the surrounding areas.
Certain serious questions must be addressed. For example, is the channel tunnel rail link financially viable? Is the channel tunnel financially viable? So far, the

company has had to go back to its shareholders on a number of occasions for additional finances. So far, it has not been able to perform as it should have done and it has not worked according to the plan set out in the company's financial forecasts.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: We told the hon. Gentleman that.

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman and I rarely agree on matters, but on this issue we have agreed consistently, right back to 1987 when I entered the House. The hon. Gentleman gave me the honour of coming into my part of the Lobby when I divided the House on the channel tunnel issue not long after I was elected here.

Mr. Skinner: The Lobby belongs to everyone.

Mr. Shaw: Nevertheless, I am still grateful for the fact that the hon. Gentleman came into my Lobby not long after I was elected to the House. I was one of the Tellers who called for the Division. I know that the hon. Gentleman has a long history of questioning the principles that lie behind the channel tunnel project.

Mr. Skinner: In the last two years or whatever of this dying Tory Government, in the event that the Government decided to come up with taxpayers' money, whether small amounts or large, to help bail out the people running the channel tunnel, would the hon. Gentleman join me in my Lobby to vote against handing out large sums of taxpayers' money? Will he give me that guarantee?

Mr. Shaw: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall vote against any public bail-out of the channel tunnel; I make that crystal clear. However, that will not necessarily occur. Although the channel tunnel is in enormous financial difficulty, the private sector may have the means and the ability to sustain it. I shall not support any Government, whether Conservative or Labour, who propose to bail out the channel tunnel with public finances.
I think that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has received the answer that he desires. I do not know whether he will divide the House on the issue and be a Teller in the Division Lobby, but I certainly hope that he will have a Front-Bench role in the new Labour party. I have always believed that he should lead the Labour party—he certainly has a unique ability to make the points for Labour that his colleagues are too frightened to make.
I also draw the attention of the House to the intergovernmental conference which will be held in Europe next year. I do not think that the House should adjourn until we have had the opportunity to discuss the convergence criteria. Although the criteria set out in the Maastricht treaty are quite simple and straightforward—they deal with Government deficits and the proportion of Government debt to gross domestic product—they do not take account of the differences in social security systems in Europe.
People are now beginning to focus on the issue of unfunded pension liabilities, which I first raised in 1991. Governments in Europe have very real debts. The Swedish Government are unable to support their social security system and they have been borrowing for 12 years on the international markets. Those markets are now signalling that they are fed up and that they do not wish


to carry any more Swedish debt. They have said that they will no longer fund Swedish employment levels or the expensive Swedish state structure.
The Swedish social security system is under enormous pressure as a result of its international funding being called into question. The Swedish Government certainly cannot fund it from their own highly taxed system. Italy and other European countries, including France, face a similar problem, and the implications are quite horrendous for any financial proposals—such as the single currency—that come before the IGC next year. I believe that the House should debate those issues as soon as possible.
The currency markets continue to build up the deutschmark in an unrealistic and an unreasonable manner. We should have a public debate about the demographics in Germany. The aging of the German population will peak in 2005 and will worsen further in proportion to the number of people in work; as a consequence, the German economy will require a greater level of funding in order to sustain its social security system. If there were to be a single currency, Britain would have to contribute towards subsidising the German social security system. That is totally unacceptable. We should debate those issues and their implications both on the Floor of the House and in the wider community.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason why Sweden is in difficulty is that it has done many of the things that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report in February this year suggested that we should do in this country—such as extra investment in social security, housing and the labour market; direct provision of employment opportunities; state-paid child care; more subsidies to employers to encourage them to take on the unemployed; and indexing benefits above the retail prices index? What does my hon. Friend think would happen if we were to take that advice?

Mr. Shaw: If we were to take that advice, like Sweden we would have to borrow from the financial markets rather than try to fund those measures out of taxation—which Sweden can no longer do because its taxation rates are already too high. As a consequence, we would increase national debt and the debt that we owe overseas. We would then be, in effect, bankrupt. Sweden is on the brink of bankruptcy, as are Italy and France, and probably Germany come the year 2005.
We must face the fact that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation recommendations are misguided. The foundation is not conducting balanced political and social research. It is sad that the foundation should be so irresponsible as to advance principles that I doubt that Joseph Rowntree would have supported in his business, personal or public life. Foundations should be much more responsible in the way in which they conduct their research.
I draw a final matter to the attention of the House which I think should be examined before we adjourn. The issue of trade union accounting should be debated on the Floor of the House of Commons. I cannot recall when the last debate on that subject occurred—we have not debated it while I have been a Member of Parliament. It would be interesting to debate the issue of political funds of trade unions.
As a chartered accountant, I have done some research into that matter. I recently reviewed some trade union accounts and found a lack of consistency in the way in

which political funds are accounted for. No code of conduct appears to be followed when drawing up accounts of political funds and there seems to be a lack of disclosure regarding so-called "political panels" which appear in trade union accounts. There is no suggestion as to what they are or how they operate.
It is remarkable that one cannot reconcile the finances of the political panels. One cannot see whether the funds are used to support Members of Parliament or how the amounts shown in the trade union accounts may be reconciled with the disclosures in the Register of Members' Interests. According to the accounts of the Union of Communication Workers, its political panel spends some £70,000 each year. The purpose of that political panel is not clear from the union's accounts and we are unsure what demands are made on the people who benefit from that panel.
I have tried to reconcile the accounts with the Register of Members' Interests, and I have found that three Members of Parliament receive money from that political panel. I pay credit to one hon. Member—I shall not mention him by name as I have not given him notice of my intention to do so—who discloses in the Register of Members' Interests that his political association receives £8,000 per year from the UCW, although his declaration does not state that that money comes from the political panel.
That is a significant sum. It is interesting that a Member of Parliament should receive that level of income. I certainly do not derive that sort of sum from any one donation or area. We are often told that no personal benefit is derived from such donations, but I have to attend many rubber chicken lunches and dinners in my constituency to raise funds for my political association. I would be very grateful if some white knight would appear on the horizon and donate £8,000 to my political association with no strings attached. However, I would be concerned that there might be strings attached. I doubt that the Union of Communication Workers would give me £8,000 without requiring me to take a certain political line.
Another hon. Member uses similar words in the Register of Members' Interests but does not disclose the figure of £8,000. That makes a total of £16,000. When I take away £16,000 from £70,000, which is the total amount that the UCW spends on its political panel, my maths tells me that that leaves some £54,000. If that is the case and it is all going to one Member of the House of Commons, that really is quite something.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Obviously, I will comment on the hon. Gentleman's speech when I wind up, but the purpose of the political panel of the UCW is the political education of its trade union members. That union does more in the political education of its members—about the way in which our democracy works—than most other trade unions put together. The hon. Gentleman implies that the money goes to one Member of the House of Commons. It does not; it is used for the purposes of political education, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that.

Mr. Shaw: There may be a slight problem here, perhaps because I have been using the word "political". I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that the political panel, or, if one likes, the panel, which is part of the political fund, is actually described in the accounts as the "parliamentary" panel. So within the political fund, it is, if one likes, the political parliamentary panel. I would


certainly be interested to know whether there is any education expenditure there, but I think that it is designed to go towards the work that is done in Parliament on behalf of the union.

Mr. Rooker: No.

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman says no, but it would be very welcome if there were a reconciliation of the trade union accounts. He is giving me all the reasons why there should be more disclosure and more information in the trade union accounts on how those items are put together, why they are often described as parliamentary panels, and what their purposes are. If I have been led to conclude wrongly that one Member of the House of Commons is getting some £50,000 a year of support to his parliamentary constituency, I am certainly open to have that position corrected. I really hold no particular brief for arguing something that is incorrect, and I would welcome the opportunity for that trade union, or any other, to disclose where the money in the parliamentary panel part of the political fund accounts goes.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Can I take it from the hon. Gentleman's comments that he will vote for the full disclosure of all moneys coming from all sources to Members of the House?

Mr. Shaw: I think that we might be arriving at a very interesting position. There is an interesting argument, although it is separate from the one that I am making today, on whether we should have more disclosure or whether we should accept that Members of Parliament should be treated like members of the public and have the same rights to privacy. I, for one, do not particularly have any great difficulty with increasing the level of disclosure over time, but that raises the question of how one makes a fair disclosure.

Mr. George Galloway: That is a fulsome endorsement.

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman needs to look at his own position and life style and whether he discloses everything about his life style in the way that he should.

Mr. Galloway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That was a very clear assertion that there is something in my life style or my income that I should be disclosing to the House but am not. I really think that that was out of order. If it was not out of order, it was certainly just about the meanest, lowest, most gratuitous insult that anyone has ever paid to me in the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House can well do without personalising things of that nature. It does not do the debate any good and it does not do any good to the image of the House of those outside this place.

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) was remarkably sensitive in getting to his feet at that point. I think that, if he looks back at comments in the House, he will see that he has not at all times been civil towards me. I have tried, in every way that I possibly can, to be civil towards him. We do not want to go down the path that he has invited me to go down, because that would not do the House much good.
In finalising my point about trade union accounts and trade union disclosure, I draw the attention of the House to the 1995 annual report of the Communication Managers Association. It is an interesting report, showing that the union has three parliamentary advisers. I notice that one of them is even a Conservative Member of Parliament. I am not certain that a Conservative Member of Parliament would want to be associated with all aspects of the report. I feel that perhaps I should go to my colleague and ask him whether he is aware that some £26,000, which comes out of the political fund of the Communication Managers Association, went to the Campaign Against Privatisation of the Post Office—CAPPO, as it is known.
It is obviously reasonable if a trade union wants to fund a campaign against the privatisation of the Post Office. I suppose that that is the sort of thing that a trade union might be expected to do. It might not fund something that is to the benefit of the Post Office consumers, or the people who use the Post Office's services, but I can understand if a trade union wants to fund something that is, perhaps, against the consumer's interest, and supports the current position of the Post Office. I am interested in a sentence in the CMA's annual report under "Parliamentary Advisers", which says:
In addition, and as reported last year, special arrangements are made in respect of the Leader of the Opposition and we make a donation of £7,000 towards the upkeep of his office.
I feel that the annual report should detail what those special arrangements are. It suggests to me that there is a lack of financial disclosure, and perhaps a lack of proper disclosure, in the trade union's accounts when we do not know what the so-called "special arrangements" are in respect of the Leader of the Opposition and how they are meant to operate.

Mr. Rooker: What is it to do with the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Shaw: If there are special arrangements in an organisation that is campaigning politically and those arrangements affect the Leader of the Opposition, I think that we should know, not only as members of the public but as Members of Parliament, what those arrangements are. The Leader of the Opposition discloses in his entry in the Register of Members' Interests something called the Industrial Research Trust. I want to know what is in that trust, what is the purpose behind it, and why money seems to be going into a pot—we do not know where it is coming from or what it is spent on. The money does not seem to be available to every Member of the House of Commons.
One must also question whether there are taxation implications. Is the trust properly set up from a taxation point of view? Is it a device to avoid or evade income tax? Are personal benefits involved? Are conditions attached to it? What special arrangements does the union consider exist?

Mr. Heald: What sort of industrial research does my hon. Friend think that that body will be doing in the Labour leader's office?

Mr. Shaw: I agree with my hon. Friend. Those are the questions that have to be answered. There is a real issue here as to why some £7,000 a year from the Communication Managers Association—we understand that other sums are also involved—goes into the Industrial Research Trust. Why are those sums necessary? What are


the special arrangements? Are they buying support for a particular policy? Is that policy of interest to all members of society, or is it of interest only to a small group in society? We have to know whether hon. Members are able to act in the interests of all members, customers, consumers and citizens of this country—all 57 million people—or whether they are acting on behalf of a small group of people whom they are financed to support.

Mr. Heald: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He is being most generous. Does he have any idea who pays into that research fund and who the trustees are? They are nothing to do with the Labour party, are they?

Mr. Shaw: I have been informed that some of the trustees of the Industrial Research Trust are members of the other House, and therefore I cannot go into detail about their names or positions, although there has been a suggestion that they are Labour peers. In consequence, it may be that if my hon. Friend or I applied for a grant from the trust, we would not get one if a political judgment about its management were involved. That raises interesting questions about the trust's purpose, the amount of money that goes into it, who benefits, how they benefit, in what circumstances they benefit, the special arrangements that exist and whether people who benefit from that money are able to exercise proper and fair judgment in the House of Commons, untainted by any financial interest or financial support.
There are a number of issues that the House should discuss. I just wonder on this occasion whether, however much hon. Members feel that we need a break, these issues are of such importance to the British nation that we should be prepared to give up some of our break next week to discuss them.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is a great advantage in debates of this nature to hear as many hon. Members as possible. I have already pointed out that long speeches may prevent other hon. Members from speaking. It appears that my advice is being ignored, and the Chair does not like to be ignored.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: I am grateful for the opportunity before the House adjourns to raise a couple of related issues and the legal framework which has presented problems to the police in dealing with important problems in my constituency: first, the level of car crime in my constituency and nationally; and secondly, the illegal use of motor bikes, which is becoming a real problem in Coventry, North-East and elsewhere, and with which the police have difficulties in dealing within the current legal framework.
Many hon. Members will be surprised, as I was, to discover that it is not an offence for a person to remove the identification marks from a motor vehicle. People can be done for tampering with a motor vehicle, but to remove such marks is not in itself an offence. In addition, there is no enforceable legal obligation on the owners of a motor vehicle to maintain proof of ownership. That situation is causing real problems for the police in their attempts to tackle vehicle-related crime.
My concerns about the issue arise from an analysis of the national situation and from a serious and on-going problem in my constituency. As vice-chairman of the

European Secure Vehicle Alliance, in view of all the comments flying around at the moment I should make it clear to the House that that position is entirely unremunerated.
Vehicle theft in England and Wales is higher than in any other country in the western world and our recovery rate for stolen vehicles has fallen substantially since 1989. In 1993, 600,000 vehicles were stolen, of which 250,000 were never recovered. In 1994 there was some improvement in the stolen vehicle rate, but the overall picture is still bleak. Recovery rates have fallen from 69 per cent. in 1989 to a reported figure of 62 per cent. in 1994. I do not altogether accept that figure of 62 per cent. yet. A provisional figure of 55 per cent. was produced, showing a drastic fall in the recovery rate of stolen vehicles, but the final figure came out at 62 per cent. Far be it from me to say that there is anything wrong with the figures, but in view of the Government's track record on other figures I am not prepared to accept that figure until I have had time to analyse it. There is a considerable discrepancy between the provisional figure of 55 per cent. and the eventual figure of 62 per cent. Even taking that into account, however, if we accept the figures as reported at face value we still have a serious situation: only 62 per cent. of stolen vehicles in Britain are recovered.
Much has been said in the House and elsewhere about the problem of so-called joy riders. The figures show clearly that we have a serious problem of permanent crime and unrecovered stolen vehicles. It is generally accepted that the number of unrecovered vehicles is due in part to a growth in organised car crime, where vehicles are either dismantled for their valuable components or have their identification marks doctored so that they can be sold as legitimate cars—a process known as ringing.
The cost of all that vehicle crime falls on the motorist, and it falls disproportionately on those who live in inner cities or the less affluent parts of our towns and cities. Motor insurance premiums have risen by 75 per cent. since 1989 and competition in the insurance market, combined with new abilities to target risks, means that someone deemed to have a high-risk address can be charged three or four times as much for insurance as people living in other parts of the same city. Theft is not the only factor which has caused premiums to rise, but it has made a large contribution. The result is that people in some areas increasingly cannot afford to drive, own or use a motor vehicle legally. They have become the indirect victims of our astronomical levels of vehicle crime.
My constituency has a specific problem with motor bikes being driven on and off the road, through housing estates, at all times of the day and night and at all speeds. During the past two years, a number of pedestrians have been injured. One incident resulted in a woman being admitted to hospital with serious injuries. Some of the bikes are being used to perpetrate serious crime. The police cannot catch the perpetrators in the act, despite using police motor bikes and a police helicopter, and if they manage to track them down to their homes they often find that the bikes have had all the identification marks removed and are in the possession of people who will not say where they got them. Often they cannot prove their ownership in any way and decline to show any receipts. Yet the police cannot confiscate the property. That is astonishing.
When a Kawasaki with all the identification marks removed was seized from someone whom the police described as a "known, prolific criminal" and that person


was unable to produce a receipt or any other document to prove that he had obtained the bike legally, the police's own legal department outlined three options open to them: to incur the cost of taking the matter to court under the Police (Property) Act 1897, but expect the bench to return the motor cycle to the only claimant; to dispose of the motor cycle without the support of the court, but expect civil proceedings against the chief constable to recover the claimant's valuation of the motor cycle; or to return the motor cycle to the claimant. Needless to say, with such legal advice, the motor cycle was returned to the person claiming to own it.
That is the problem facing the police in my constituency and elsewhere when they try to deal with a serious problem that is blighting the lives of many people. The existing law does nothing to help them.
Those problems are not confined to Coventry. Salford metropolitan borough, which was concerned at the number of uninsured, untaxed and often stolen motor bikes being used in the city, recently raised the matter with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities to obtain a national assessment of the problem.
The motor industry is also calling for action to deal with the problem. The core and advanced security group of the Ford Motor Company Ltd. wrote to the European secure vehicle alliance saying:
One long standing concern has been the ability of car ringers to remove all identification marks and avoid prosecution.
The letter continues:
Any vehicle whose original identity could not be proved by the police was usually handed back
to the thief or ringer. The group calls for examination of the Japanese system of marking major vehicle components and storing car identification numbers in a central database.
If we are to reduce the problems of vehicle theft, we need to strengthen the law in this area. We should oblige owners to maintain proof of ownership and make it a criminal offence to remove vehicle identification numbers. I know that there are currently consultations about the tightening of vehicle registration, but that in itself is not enough and will not address the problems that I have outlined today.
Vehicle theft is costing our economy a fortune. The costs fall on the motorist, and disproportionately on poorer motorists. Our crime rate is an indictment of a do-nothing Government who are heavy on rhetoric but light on action. Let us give the police a tool that they can use in tackling these important problems and let us start immediately during the consultation process.

12 noon

Mr. Barry Field: First, I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) for not observing the usual niceties of the House by informing the hon. Lady in advance that I would be mentioning her constituency. However, I am certain that the people of the Isle of Wight, and not least the Isle of Wight county branch of the Royal British Legion, would like me to extend their condolences to the people of Christchurch in respect of the tragedy that

they have suffered. There are many associations between our two constituencies, as hon. Members would expect, and I ought to put that on record before I commence.
I do not intend to go down the route that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) followed, but I have to say, in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, that I allow myself a slightly wry smile in looking at the recommendations of the Nolan committee. The House has for many years directed millions of pounds of taxpayers' money, which is known as Short money, to political parties.
I am open to correction by Opposition Members, but I understand that the Labour party has always voluntarily accounted for that money and published the way in which it uses it. However, it has always been something of an interesting political mystery to me that the Liberal party, which makes so much of open government, has never published how it applies Short money. If any other organisation in the United Kingdom distributed such large sums of money without there being a standing requirement to show how that money was spent, we would be down on it like a ton of bricks. Yet this tradition has gone on for some years in the House and it is impossible to find any transparency. However, that is not what I intended to raise—I merely put it on record and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Lord President will make a note of it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) started this debate by talking about education, and it is along those lines that my concern lies. My hon. Friend expressed the view that there was something of a political conspiracy between the Opposition parties on education in Kent.
The late Sir John Nicholson, who was a well-known figure in the City as well as the Isle of Wight, always told me that the Isle of Wight would never lack for anecdotal evidence. Since I have been its Member of Parliament, I have tried to sift the information which comes to me rather than always believing that there is some great political conspiracy. However, I did happen to notice that a number of Liberal Democrat-controlled authorities have done away with their chief executives and not bothered to replace them.
As hon. Members know, we have a new unitary authority on the Isle of Wight, but we still do not have a chief executive. I have to rely somewhat on hearsay evidence for this because I have not entirely authenticated the figure, but I am told that something like £1.5 million has been spent on the basis of the chairman's decision without referral to committees. That concerns me.
I am not concerned that there should be delegated powers to spend—when I was a councillor, I argued for raising them to a substantial figure—but I am concerned that it has occurred since we have not had a chief executive. I hope that the new unitary council, under the political control of the Liberal Democrats, will address that problem. In a small island community such as ours, feelings run high on many issues and we need someone to hold the ring in a professional way and give thrust to policy as decided by the Liberal Democrats. We are the poorer for not having such a person. I shall return to that subject in future if we are not successful in getting a chief executive appointed.
Over the years, we have always had problems with school admissions on the island. We have only five high schools and some parents want their children to go to


schools outside their areas. I have always managed to resolve such problems privately with the chairman of the education committee, Councillor Maureen Stolworthy, for whom I have the utmost regard. I congratulate her on her appointment as the first chairman of the new unitary authority. However, on this occasion that process has not happened. I also find that it is not happening in Hampshire, which is a separate education authority.
I begin to get a slight feeling that perhaps the Liberal Democrats have a new policy to frustrate parental choice in schools—I put it no higher than that—as I have found a ludicrous situation in which two talented students on the Isle of Wight want to study Latin, but they can do so only at Carisbrooke high school, to which they have been refused entrance. There is also a pupil, both of whose parents work for the county council, or unitary authority as it now is, in Newport. They want their child to attend Carisbrooke high school, but their catchment area is Sandown and admission has been refused. However, Sandown high is bursting at the seams. Such illogical enforcement of the rules is beginning to frustrate people on the Isle of Wight.
I have a letter from John Groves, chairman of the governors of Solent middle school. He says:
It is our opinion that the LEA has mismanaged the admissions process"—
he is referring specifically to his school—
and has put the school into a position where financially it now needs more children.
The letter was sent to every councillor and continues:
Please bring your common sense to bear on this problem so that it may be resolved at the earliest opportunity.
I hope that that will happen, and I have written to the new education committee chairman. I hope that the tradition on the Isle of Wight of not using education as a political football will continue and that pragmatism and common sense will prevail.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: As a party organiser, I had to work on many occasions with Harold Wilson and I wish to be associated with the tributes that will be paid to him later today. Certainly, the effects and the results of his Labour Governments, such as the Open university, will stand as a tribute to his administration for many years.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be brief on the issue that I want to raise because you have asked for that and because it would be premature to raise a number of issues that relate to the point that I want to deal with.
The Leader of the House knows of my concern about pension funds. The Pensions Bill is currently going through Parliament. I have constituents who have been affected in the widest sense by pension fund problems, not only in respect of the Maxwell fund but in respect of Astra Holdings, Sycamore Holdings and Bellings pension funds. The Leader of the House knows that I have raised the matter with him and other Ministers on many occasions in the House.
I wish to concentrate today on the Bellings fund, in which there has clearly been fraud and abuse on the widest scale comparable to the Maxwell situation. I hope that the week's recess will give the Government a final opportunity to look at some of the gaps that are not being plugged in legislation so that problems with pension funds

do not occur in future. In the years ahead, no hon. Member should need to tell the House that a pension fund is not able to honour its commitments to its pensioners. Negotiations are still going on over Bellings and for that reason, some things are best not said in the House.
There is, however, one point that the Leader of the House should put to the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, who has responsibility for pensions, and to the Prime Minister. When I asked the Prime Minister a question on the first day back after the Easter recess, he said exactly the same as the Minister had said. The Prime Minister and the Minister say that because not as many people have been affected by the Bellings pension fund as were affected by the Maxwell fund, the Government will not help them in the same way.
I, any reasonable person and the people who are members of the Bellings fund say that the suffering of the fund members has been identical to the suffering of those in the Maxwell fund and in other funds. The number of people involved is not relevant and the Bellings pension fund members do not take kindly to being told that their problem is not the same. It is, of course, not just a matter of numbers. The Maxwells were well known and the media gave the problems with the Maxwell fund much wider publicity.
I ask the Leader of the House to urge his colleagues in the Department of Social Security to think again. Any help that the Government were willing to give to the Maxwell pension fund members should be given to the Bellings pension fund members and to any others who are in a similar situation, because the procedures have not safeguarded the pension funds of which they are members.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: I take this opportunity on the Adjournment of the House to raise three matters concerning education, especially in connection with the Office of Standards in Education report, which raises important matters. The Government's reforms of education have undoubtedly improved education standards in our schools. The GCSE results, the A-level results, the proportion of students staying on at school and the number of people going into higher education—I shall not quote the statistics—are significant evidence of improvement. Our test results will gradually become evidence of that as well.
There are two crucial strands of policy on which I should like the Government to build. The first relates to making schools more directly accountable to parents. A recent public attitude survey found that no fewer than 87 per cent. of parents welcomed the greater control that they had over their local schools and the greater information that they had through the league tables, all of which were a result of the Government's reforms. Secondly, it is important that, through the governing bodies, parents have been given greater powers to control school budgets. Nowadays, even non-grant-maintained schools have 90 per cent. of their budget available to use as they wish.
Even more important is the way in which the secret garden of education—the curriculum—has been opened up, not only by testing, but by the new Ofsted inspections, which are far more comprehensive and far more frequent than used to be the case. In the past, the average secondary school had a comprehensive inspection from outside its


local authority once every 50 years; there is now an inspection once every four years and 6,000 take place each year. That has allowed us to move the education debate away from what I have always regarded as the sterile ground of looking at schools as if they were sausage machines and of believing that the more resources one put in, the more one would get out, to looking in more detail at the education process and at the quality of teaching and education in our schools.
It is sad—it may be ruing this—that the Labour party voted against the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, the Education Reform Act 1988 and the Education Act 1994, which gave parents more access to the information that has opened up the secret garden in a constructive way.
The Ofsted report to which I referred shows that 40 per cent. of 14-year-olds did not meet the required standards last year in English, mathematics and science. Some 25 per cent. of seven-year-olds did not meet the required standards in the three Rs. The report also showed that 20 per cent. of schools—one in five—were not teaching properly something as basic as English.
It behoves us to consider the reasons for those figures. The reasons are not just curriculum organisation and the management of schools. The figures may be related to the basic skills of teachers, and according to Ofsted, which is objective in the matter, that has proved to be the case. Two out of every three newly trained primary teachers, in the opinion of Ofsted, did not know how to teach reading. Only one in 10 primary teachers had a proper grasp of mathematics.
I argue today for two things. First, not on a statutory basis, but on the basis of encouraging every local education authority, there should be criteria by which schools would be judged during visits by inspectors. There should be a clearly laid down system of appraisal of teachers in every local education authority and, more importantly, in every school; it happens in some schools already. The system works well, it is constructive and it is not a hire-or-fire policy, but a way in which the weaknesses of various teachers can be improved. The next stage should be that the Government insist that each school erects such a system so that problems with teachers can be dealt with.
Secondly, there is no point in having such an appraisal system unless head teachers and heads of departments know how properly to use it. I know that head teacher training, especially for new heads, is being improved by the Department for Education. I believe, however, that the retraining of heads on a national basis is important. There should be retraining in terms of general management skills, which many head teachers do not have when they are appointed, and in terms of using the appraisal system. That system would identify weaknesses and would be a significant way in which to motivate teachers.
There is no point in giving schools greater opportunities to appraise teachers and to manage them if we do not give them flexibility in terms of pay. There is only one state school in the country—the Oratory school, to which the Leader of the Opposition is shortly to send his son—which has moved away from the mandatory system of teachers' pay being negotiated on a national basis. It is crazy that teaching is one of the few markets in which pay does not reflect local labour market conditions and which does not give schools the opportunity to reward teachers in a flexible way. We should move to a recommended system of

national pay bargaining rather than a mandatory system. That would underpin the improvement of standards that we have seen recently in our schools.

Mr. George Galloway: The House should not adjourn without discussing the current crisis in Kashmir, where two heavily armed countries, both probably in possession of nuclear weapons, are squared up to each other in an atmosphere of escalating tension and where general hostilities may break out at any time. That would have catastrophic consequences for the Indian-Pakistani sub-continent, for the broader area and for the world as a whole.
I declare an interest in the matter. As a long-standing and close associate of the Pakistan People's party, I spent an abstemious Hogmanay in Islamabad as a guest of the Pakistan People's party Government and of Benazir Bhutto personally. It was a very abstemious Hogmanay, but my visit was an interest that I should declare in this debate.
The immediate cause of the crisis has been the escalation from a six or seven-year low-intensity struggle between the Indian occupation force in Kashmir and the indigenous resistance to that occupation into a qualitatively different and more dangerous situation, with the burning of the shrine at Charar-i-Sharif. The flames are still licking around the ruins of the 650-year-old holy shrine, the adjacent mosque and the adjacent houses, all of which were destroyed in a firefight between the Indian occupation forces and people who were taking sanctuary in the shrine. As a result of that firefight, an ancient and revered site has been reduced to ash and ruins. The consequent increase in the political temperature on both sides of the border, and in the occupied and disputed area itself, is real and palpable. The House and, indeed, the Government should recognise it.
The Indian Defence Minister publicly threatened that India would invade the area known as Azad Kashmir, which is currently outside Indian control and in a semi-detached relationship with Pakistan. He said that India would teach Pakistan a lesson. There is a general alert in the area: soldiers and populations are bracing themselves for a new, much more damaging and dangerous military altercation.
The ultimate cause of all the tension—which has meant that two countries where people often go hungry and many millions experience deep poverty spend 60 per cent. of their budgets on armaments and defence—is the unresolved status of the area of Jammu and Kashmir. In a sense, that is a British responsibility: it is unfinished business following partition. It was mishandled at the time of partition, and has never been resolved. The United Nations resolutions of 1948 and 1949, which call for the people of Jammu and Kashmir to decide on their future by plebiscite, have never been implemented; and the United Nations charter that gives every people the right to self-determination has also never been implemented in the area.
India must learn that simply pouring more and more soldiers—650,000 now—and more and more firepower into the occupied territory, the valley of Kashmir, which used to be known as "paradise on earth", and creating increasing aggression on the ground, will not lead to


quiescence among the occupied people. Indeed, it merely adds fuel to the fires that we have seen over the past few weeks. There must be a peace process.
My early-day motion 1126, entitled "Need for a negotiated settlement in Kashmir", has been widely supported by members of all parties. It asks for a peace process to begin, and Britain is in an ideal position to begin it. She has good relations with both India and Pakistan, both of which are members of the Commonwealth. Britain is in a position to initiate contacts of some kind, perhaps through an eminent persons group. There are many redundant statespeople in the Houses of Parliament, some of whom were very eminent once. They could be put to constructive work trying to broker the beginning of a peace settlement, bringing to the table the Governments of India and Pakistan and those who represented the people of Jammu and Kashmir at the Hurryat conference.
I do not understand why Britain does not want to play that role. It would bring to a peaceful, negotiated end the long running sore that has cost thousands of lives, has caused three wars and is in danger of causing a fourth. It has led to mass intimidation, rape as an instrument of political oppression, shooting in the streets, torture in the prisons, exile, refugees and all the dreadful panoply that accompanies such a conflict. Britain could do itself a great deal of good in the area, the Commonwealth and the world by beginning a peace process.
Benazir Bhutto and her Government hold the line against extremism in that part of the world. They are a democratic Government of an Islamic country—moderate, not threatening to any neighbours or anyone else; but, for as long as the Kashmir issue remains unresolved, they are in danger. If Benazir Bhutto goes, the dark forces that will step into the government of Pakistan will certainly not be in the interests of the people of the area, this country or the community more generally.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Before we adjourn, perhaps it would be possible to discuss a range of transport issues, and also low pay.
Johnson Matthey in my constituency has developed a diesel auto-catalyst that has a remarkable effect in removing dangerous particles from exhaust fumes. I know that my hon. Friend die Minister for Transport in London has seen the device in operation, and I hope that more discussion of it will be possible in the House. There is no doubt that, if it were fitted to all the diesel engines in Britain, environmental pollution would be much reduced.
There is much concern about roads in my constituency. The A10 between Royston and Buntingford has become an accident black spot. I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads has been able to introduce, through the county council, a range of measures to improve safety on that road. What is most shocking, however, is that most of the accidents have been caused by drivers travelling far too fast and overtaking where road signs make it clear that overtaking is not possible. Accident follows accident, despite the marvellous efforts of the local police, who have prosecuted 120 people in this year alone. I hope that a further campaign can be launched to persuade motorists to cut their speed and obey road signs.
Baldock badly needs a bypass, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will proceed with that programme once the public inquiry has been completed.
Let me turn from local issues to low pay. I am disappointed not to have received an answer to the question that I put to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on 14 February. I asked him whether he endorsed the analysis of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report, and whether he accepted that its conclusions were sound. He said that he endorsed the analysis, and accepted that many of the conclusions were sound; but he would not say which of those conclusions a Labour Government would implement.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Typical.

Mr. Heald: It was not a tremendous surprise. It is worth considering, however, what analysis the hon. Member for Garscadden was endorsing. The report said that, since the mid-1970s, income inequality and wealth distribution inequality had grown. That, however, was a period of high inflation and high taxation: anyone with any savings saw those savings eroded year after year, until they had no substantial value. The gap narrowed between such people and those with no savings at all.
It is true that the difference between the highest and the lowest earner was narrower during the mid-1970s, but that was because all wage rates were falling and taxation was penal. If the hon. Member for Garscadden accepts the analysis, surely he must say which of the report's conclusions he would put into practice. Those conclusions were that there should be extra investment in training and education, social security, housing and the labour market, direct provision of employment opportunities, state-paid child care, more subsidies to employers to take on the unemployed, indexing of benefits above the retail prices index, social fund grants, not loans, and a reversal of the reduction in the jobseeker's allowance to six months. When we debated those issues in February, many Labour Members said that those were the changes that they wanted, yet the Opposition do not say what they would do. We hear many claims that the Government are following the wrong path, but the only way in which the public can judge those issues is if the Labour party says what it would do.
All the measures that I have read out involve spending more money. I should like to know how that squares with the Leader of the Opposition's comments in his Mais lecture, when he said:
In Government, controlling public spending is a long and gruelling slog. But the alternative is far worse".
If he is saying such things—which is a move in the right direction—how can his Front-Bench spokesmen stand there and say that they accept the conclusions of a report that involves spending and more spending? It just will not do.
The report also makes a proposal for a minimum wage, no doubt at the level that the trade unions want. Was it not in November that Denis Healey said that that would enable the trade unions to build a new tower on the platform of the minimum wage? If it is right that that would happen and that all the differentials would move up, how can the Leader of the Opposition say:
Controlling inflation is not only an objective in itself. It is an essential prerequisite for sustainable economic growth on a scale sufficient to attain the social and political aims of the Labour Party"?
What could be more inflationary than every wage level being pushed up on the platform of a minimum wage? I hope that we can debate those issues before we adjourn and obtain some real answers for a change.

Mr. David Winnick: Later today, tributes will, I understand, be paid in the usual way to Harold Wilson. Winning four out of five elections as party leader is a remarkable score. I speak as one who, in a sense, benefited from his leadership. I won an election for another seat in 1966 by a majority of 81, and had it not been for the climate at the time I doubt whether even all my hard efforts and those of my supporters would have secured victory. Over many years, Harold Wilson played a significant role in the life of the Labour party. It is right and proper that we should pay tribute to him today.
I want to deal with the importance of making progress on the Nolan recommendations before the long summer recess. It was interesting, as those who have read the press in the last few days will have noted, that in last Thursday's debate the view—almost exclusively expressed by Tory Members—that the Nolan recommendations should not be implemented in whole and that there should be no disclosures of outside financial interests received a hostile press. I may be wrong—I may have missed one or two newspapers—but, literally, not one newspaper echoed the theme of the Tory critics in that debate.
The Prime Minister was right to set up the Nolan committee. As I said during Prime Minister's questions last Thursday, it is important that its recommendations should be implemented quickly. There is no reason why—and I have argued this over many years—disclosure of outside financial interests should not be made in the Register of Members' Interests. At present, the register gives no insight into how much is involved. The Nolan committee's recommendations are constructive.
I know that some of my hon. Friends are in favour of a total ban on outside interests, but I am not. Such a ban would not be right or practical. I have never argued anything along those lines. As Members of the Parliament, however, we have a responsibility to be perfectly frank about what we do outside and what income we receive. We should not conceal it from our colleagues in the House of Commons or from the electorate.
My interests are in the register. My union pays a contribution.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: How much?

Mr. Winnick: How much is in the register. I have made sure that that is so. The union pays my constituency party £300 each year. It pays me no money, and rightly so. It also pays a proportion of my election expenses. It is all in the register, apart from one other entry that anyone can check.
It has been a matter of regret that the reputation of the House of Commons has been lowered, particularly as a result of what has happened in the past six or nine months. It is important for us to put our House in order. There have always been people who have argued against change and reform. In the last century, they argued against measures to tackle corruption. Even the Reform Act 1832 was rigorously opposed, but those changes were considered to be necessary.
I was in the House of Commons before there was a Register of Members' Interests. When it was suggested that such a register should be introduced, there were protests—mostly, of course, from Conservative Members—that it would be an intrusion into privacy and that it would be wrong. No one argues that now. The register is accepted, even by those critics in the debate last Thursday. Not one single Tory said that there should not be a register. It was, nevertheless, a subject of much controversy before it was introduced.
Once the Nolan recommendations are put into effect, with the source of outside income being disclosed, after a period of time they too will be accepted. No one is likely to argue against them. I ask the Leader of the House: when will the suggested Committee be set up, when will it report, are the Government determined not to dilute Nolan, and will they find excuses as to why those recommendations should not be put into effect?
The recommendations should be put into effect as quickly as possible. There should be firm recommendations before the House embarks on the summer recess. Delay is not permissible. Undoubtedly, delay would not be understood outside. In the country at large, widespread support exists for the changes that we know are necessary to clean up our act and to ensure that the reputation of the House is what it should be. For those reasons, the Leader of the House should give a firm assurance today that the promise that we require will be given.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: This morning, 14 hon. Members have taken part in the debate—somewhat fewer than we had for the last recess Wednesday debate, in which about 21 took part. One of the reasons for that is that, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have observed, some of the speeches have been far too long. We need a safety valve—a zero hour—to allow us to raise urgent issues, but hon. Members coming to the House during Adjournment debates when they cannot obtain a reply from a Minister causes a bit of a problem for the Leader of the House.
Nevertheless, some interesting points have been made. In the time available, I cannot touch on them all. Obviously, a good many Conservative Members are still shellshocked from the results of 4 May and the consequences of the change ordered by the electorate in the management and governance of their local authorities. They cannot quite come to terms with the fact that, at the request of the electorate, another political approach is being taken in relation to the delivery of services, whether they be social services or education. The first two speeches by Conservative Members dealt with that.
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) was rightly in her place this morning, and she would have been there this afternoon if our business had been as arranged. Following yesterday's accident, we all share the distress, trauma and bereavement that has been caused to many families. These accidents do not happen very often on our roads. We have an intensively used motorway network. There are always many reasons why accidents happen. It would be wrong for the House to rush to a judgment, and we do not wish to do so. We must learn lessons from each of these tragedies so that the experience and knowledge gained can be used to prevent accidents in the future.
I know that the hon. Member for Christchurch and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) contacted the Speaker's Office this morning requesting a private notice question. I am sure that Madam Speaker would have granted their request or the Secretary of State for Transport would have made a statement to the House. Obviously, that is not possible because of the sad death of Lord Wilson, our former Prime Minister. We must make it clear that, notwithstanding that terrible tragedy, we have a good safety record on our roads and we have responsible coach operators.
The answer is not to be found by concentrating on a single issue, whether it be seat belts or the structure and integrity of the bodywork of the coach. We must reassure the travelling public that everything will be done by the inspection and investigation agencies to ensure that all the lessons are learnt from the tragedy. I am sure that the House will return to this matter on some other day.
I must confess that I missed part of the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), but my good friend the deputy Chief Whip told me that he had raised the important issue of the dismantling of offshore equipment in the North sea. We have exploited the natural resource in the North sea to the great advantage of the United Kingdom—and I emphasise, to the advantage of the United Kingdom—in the past 20 years. It has involved an enormous number of jobs, new technologies and an enormous amount of wealth. We can argue about the way in which the wealth has been used, either public or private but, as we are moving further out into the North sea and the Atlantic, the equipment near the shore should not be left in such a state that it affects the ability of hundreds of other people to carry out their normal occupation—fishing.
There is a cost to be met for exploiting the natural resources of the planet, whether it is the coal mines or beneath the sea bed. The cost of that exploitation must be restoration as far as is practicable so that we do not damage opportunities for future generations.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how he can justify the new political order to which he referred in view of the contents of my speech, which dealt with Labour and Liberal Democrat-controlled Kent county council? Although that council has more than one source of money available, it short-changes our schools. I asked whether Opposition spokesmen could justify that and whether they would instruct their groups on the council to put the money into schools.

Mr. Rooker: I am not keeping a count of this and I cannot refer to every speech, but I believe that I am dealing with the fourth or fifth speech and I do not intend to go back.
The issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow needs to be addressed and I believe that it will come before the House on many occasions in the future. It affects not just the occupation but the life of those involved in the fishing industry.
The cost of exploitation must be considered under the polluter pays principle. We and the oil industry have polluted the infrastructure of the North sea and we should not allow that to prevent other people from carrying out their normal occupations.
The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), who has just arrived back in the Chamber, did a 50 yd sprint along the Benches this morning because the first time he was

called to speak he was separated from his notes, so Madam Speaker went on to call another hon. Member. However, when he did make his speech, he seemed to be having some difficulty coming to terms with the catastrophic implications for Tory Members of the results of the elections on 4 May.
I shall not go into detail about the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised about local government in Essex and Basildon, but he should not seek always seek to undermine the concept of independent local government. The House has a real problem with some people who claim that we are sovereign over everything and that we have the answers to everything. We do not, and we should not pretend that we do. If we genuinely believe in independent local government, we will not always agree with what our colleagues in local government do, from whichever side of the political divide they come. We can raise the issues on behalf of our constituents—that is our prime function—but we should not seek to undermine the concept of local government.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Fenchurch Street line. I have done some campaigning in Basildon so I suspect that I have travelled on that line in the past.
The hon. Gentleman talked about identity cards. I hope that this will not cause a problem and I hope that he does not fall over, but I should tell him that I am predisposed towards the concept of identity cards and I am not alone on the Opposition Benches. It is not an issue on which there is a narrow party divide. One of the biggest tragedies facing us is that we have a Home Secretary who seeks to make a party issue out of every serious home affairs matter. [Interruption.] I do not agree with sedentary interruptions.
I do not agree with the concept of compulsory identity cards and I do not agree with putting DNA information on such cards. I believe that citizens have a right to assert their identity and that is my starting point. They have a right to do that regardless of their position in society, whether it is at home, in the office, getting a travelcard or even if they are stopped in the street. They should be able to tell the police, "Naff off. I have asserted my identity and that is the end of the matter." That right does not exist now. I have a pocket full of credit cards and hon. Members cannot move around the House without a photo-identity pass because we cannot open some of the doors without them. There is a genuine issue to be addressed.
The driving licence may be the way to go. I agree with the chief constable in my area who believes that identity cards should contain not just a photograph but a fingerprint. That would go an enormous way towards dealing with the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), who spoke of motor crime. In fact, if it were not for motor vehicles, we probably would not need as many police because at least half of all crime is related to motor vehicles in one way or another. That issue must be considered seriously.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) raised an important issue. Sometimes there is a downside to the use of modern technology, particularly in the health service, whether one looks back to the thalidomide issue or haemophiliacs and the AIDS virus. We must address this issue. We cannot leave it to the


courts or to individual citizens to take on the NHS or the drug companies. We should not leave people to go, apparently, begging to the Government.
To our disgrace, we do not have a system of no-fault compensation in this country. The Government would have the full support of the Opposition if they adopted the same attitude to the hepatitis C virus as they did to haemophiliacs and the AIDS virus. The number of people involved is small and it will not be the last time. There will always be such issues because of the use of technology in the health service. Such people need our help before they have to go knocking on doors. Their mothers and fathers need help as do others who take care of them.
The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) made a very long speech and I cannot deal with all of it. He also talked about education and complained about local government publicity. If a local authority is breaking the law on political propaganda, the hon. Gentleman should use the mechanisms in the Local Government Act 1988, which the House put in place for hon. Members to operate. He should not just come here and complain about it.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill. I should declare an interest: I have no intention of ever using the channel tunnel because I do not think that it is safe enough. I accept that that view is prejudiced, but that is my belief. The Opposition have no predisposition to use public money to save the private investors. On the other hand, we cannot ignore the fact that it is there. The hon. Gentleman rightly declared his vested interest and I suspect that the financing of the channel tunnel will come back to haunt the House and the country for some time, particularly when one considers our inability to provide the necessary infrastructure to go with it.
The main part of the hon. Gentleman's speech was on the political funds of the Union of Communication Workers. As I said in an intervention, political education in that union is far in advance of and more detailed than in any other trade union of which I am aware and the political panel is the structure for doing that.
The political panel does not just relate to the Members of Parliament who happen to be here; it relates to those who aspire to be Members of Parliament and who have to go through the training processes and is part of the funding for their education. It has to come out of the political fund. It certainly does not have the implication suggested by the hon. Gentleman that the money he cannot account for has ended up as £50,000 sponsorship for one of my hon. Friends. I can assure him, without even checking up on the matter, that that is not the case because I know the way in which that union operates.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East raised an issue that he had intended to raise later today under the ten-minute Bill procedure. I was astonished by the fact that two thirds of stolen vehicles are never recovered. It is an astonishing figure bearing in mind the amount of police time occupied in dealing with vehicle crime.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) was the only person to raise an international issue and he spoke about the continuing and worsening position in Kashmir. As he said, our nation is in a unique position to offer more help to both the

Pakistan and Indian Governments than we have hitherto given. We must not follow the rhetoric that Pakistan does not want an independent Kashmir—I am well aware of that from my constituents in Birmingham. The conflict must be resolved without going to war for the fourth time, and it can be resolved only by talking. That is what this Government should be encouraging.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The House will understand that I wish to begin my remarks by expressing the regret that we all feel at the death of Lord Wilson. Whatever political disagreements there may have been, he was undoubtedly one of the substantial political figures of our time. We can all think of some of his memorable phrases that will probably be part of British politics for all time, and which may be referred to when proper tribute is paid to him later today.
This has been another interesting revised Adjournment debate occasion, now known as "Matters to be considered". As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said, there have not been as many speakers as there were on the last occasion, but rather more than appeared to be likely when Mr. Deputy Speaker spoke so sternly from the Chair about one and a half hours ago—since when the proceedings have speeded up considerably.
My main feeling is one of envy for the freedom with which the hon. Member for Perry Bar felt able to speak from the Dispatch Box. I detected only a rather tenuous connection between what he said and the policies that he is supposed to advocate. Indeed, there must be some risk of a headline in tomorrow's newspapers, "Opposition denounce channel tunnel"—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman probably said that it was a personal view, but nevertheless I envy his freedom to scatter such comments from the Front Bench. He also used one or two phrases that I would not care to use from the Front Bench, but that is life.
Obviously, I will not have time to deal with all the speeches, any more than the hon. Gentleman was able to do so. I am sure that the House will understand if I start slightly out of order with the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock), who spoke about the terrible and tragic accident that happened yesterday and which affected many of her constituents. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) said, it also affected many people with whom he and his constituents are connected.
I hope that the hon. Lady will not mind me saying that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made a special visit to the House this morning to hear what she had to say. I understand that he has been in touch with her and that they had a helpful discussion in which he made clear the sympathy we all feel for the families of those who were killed or injured. I am sure that we all wish to pay tribute to the emergency services for their prompt response.
The hon. Lady fairly said that she did not expect me, or my right hon. Friend, had he been able to answer a private notice question, to make any assumption about the cause of the accident. However, I understand that my right hon. Friend has assured her that he will look at the report


that has been commissioned from the Vehicle Inspectorate against the background of the points that she raised this morning.
I want to comment briefly on as many speeches as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) made a number of points about education and he was later echoed by my hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Mr. Shaw) in relation to Kent and for Basildon (Mr. Amess) in relation to Essex. Indeed, education was the single strongest theme running through the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham made a number of comments to which I cannot respond in detail. However, he made an interesting point about the underspend on the revenue budget in Kent and the suggestion of Conservative members of the county council to use that to overcome the problems with the education budget. I am sure that we all hope that that proposition will be carefully considered.
I am glad to note that in Essex, where there were similar problems, the Conservative group had rather greater success. Against a background of division between the Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition, it proposed a plan that successfully prevented the damage that would otherwise have been done by the coalition's original proposals.
I am always reluctant to use the Dispatch Box to air constituency matters and I will not do so now, other than to say that I am finding exactly the position outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon relating to community care in Essex and bed-blocking. There is also what I can call only the deplorable proposal to withdraw transport to selective schools. That can only damage the least well-off with able children. I very much hope that Essex will decide not to proceed with that proposal when it considers it again next month.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) made some important points about the assisted places scheme, which in many ways echo what I have just said about transport to selective schools. Once again, the Labour party is attacking something that has widened educational opportunities for least well-off people in society and which has helped more than 70,000 children since its inception. I hope that the Opposition collectively, not just in any particular area, will reconsider their policies and proposals in that area.
I stayed in the House to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie). He knows that I understand many of the points that he raised because of the time that I served both as a Health Minister and as a Social Security Minister, when a

system was put in place to help those who had contracted AIDS from infected blood transfusions. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot add to the various exchanges on those matters, but I am sure that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Health and the Prime Minister will study what he has said this morning with great care.
I hope that people will study if not all at least part of what my hon. Friend the Member for Dover said. He had obviously done a great deal of research into trade union accounts and the Industrial Research Trust. He asked a number of questions that I am sure he would not expect me to answer, but which we all expect others in other places to consider and then provide answers.
The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) made some important and interesting points about car crime and I shall ensure that they are drawn to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
I shall draw the thoughtful and constructive points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, on a number of matters, to the attention of my various colleagues.
I cannot add to the exchanges that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and I have had during business questions and on other occasions. However, our very recognition of the problem of pension funds, which was revealed most dramatically by the Maxwell case, underlies the Pensions Bill that is currently in Committee. At the very least, the Bill is clear recognition of the concern that is felt, which the Government share and which we are seeking to address through changes in the law.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) echoed others' comments, including those of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon, about the involvement of parents in the educational process. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest will know that a great deal of effort has been put into securing such involvement and I am sure that his suggestions will be carefully considered.
I am sure, too, that all the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and, not least, the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) about the current consultation exercise, in which the fishermen will have an opportunity to have their say, will be carefully considered by Ministers. In anticipation of that, I hope that all hon. Members who have made points will depart tomorrow reasonably peacefully for a happy and contented recess.

Anglo-German Relations

1 pm

Mr. Mike Watson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you rule that the apt title for the debate that is about to begin is "British-German Relations" or "United Kingdom-German Relations"? I do not wish to delay the debate—indeed, I am secretary of the British-German all-party parliamentary group, and I look forward to it—but it is irritating for those of us in the House who are Scottish, Irish or Welsh continually to hear talk of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and so on. May we please get the terminology right in future?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): We must wait to hear what the debate is about before we decide whether the title is appropriate.

Mr. Giles Radice: I entirely agree with the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson). He is absolutely right. The debate should have been entitled "British-German Relations". The purpose of my debate is to argue the case, before the Anglo-German summit later this week, for a much closer and stronger Anglo-German alliance. I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree with that.
My visits to Germany recently have convinced me that there are some very strong common interests between the two countries. I have been fortunate enough to visit Germany and speak to well over 100 leading and representative Germans during the past two years in gathering material for a book, about which modesty prevents me from saying anything more. I am indebted, however, to the Ebert Stiftung and the Deutsche-Englische Gesellschaft for enabling me to make the trips, and I also thank the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee for giving me the opportunity to meet three successive presidents of the Bundesbank.
In November 1993, Klaus Kinkel, the German Foreign Secretary, described the relationship with London as "unspectacular … solid, dependable, professional". A correspondent of The Times commented that Kinkel might have been describing his relationship with his dentist. My case this afternoon is that, given the joint experience, common interest and common problems of the two countries, something warmer than a dentist-patient relationship is needed. Positive and sustained steps, especially by the British side, should be taken to strengthen Anglo-German understanding.
Sadly, British attitudes to Germany and the Germans are far too often characterised by misunderstanding, envy and sometimes downright ignorance. Despite all the good work of the various British-German institutions, including those in which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central is involved, the British know very little about modern Germany. German is almost never the first foreign language taught in schools. Few learn subsequently about German politics, institutions or culture, and most British tourists go not to Germany but to France and the Mediterranean countries for their holidays. Indeed, a recent Financial Times poll showed that only 5 per cent. of British people have recently been to Germany, although 20 per cent. of Germans have recently been to Britain.
As a result, British views about Germany are shaped not by direct contact, as they ought to be, but by an unhappy combination of national stereotyping, memories of two world wars and half-digested scraps of information. Such poor information is basically due, with some notable exceptions, to the rather inadequate coverage of Germany even in the quality press, while the treatment of Germany by the tabloids is—frankly—a national disgrace.
In the political class, there is, I fear, an element of envy. Germans seems to have done so much better than us in the post-war world. British politicians, especially on the right, fear the German economy when it is strong and criticise it when it is weak. There are totally unjustified concerns about the prospect of an over-powerful Germany. That underlying assumption coloured Mrs. Thatcher's attitude to unification, which, as we know, was extremely hostile and very bad for British-German relations.
It is time that we treated the Germans as allies and friends. They have earned our trust and respect by the way in which they have conducted themselves over the past 50 years.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): In connection with what the hon. Gentleman has just said and his earlier statements about the fact that German is not taught as our first foreign language, does he agree that a student gains greater satisfaction from learning German rather than French because it is far more easy for an Englishman—nay, even a Scotsman—to speak German with a convincing accent? Indeed, German grammar enables one to understand English grammar, which, given that Latin is no longer studied at school, is very useful.

Mr. Radice: We ought to learn both.

Mr. Denis MacShane: English and German?

Mr. Radice: We ought to learn German and French. I hope that one or two of us know a little English already.
What are the facts about modern Germany? The federal republic, now extended eastward through unification, has been the most successful regime in German history, not only economically but socially and democratically. Drawing on British and American experience and advice, playing to German strengths, and above all learning the lessons of the past, the founding fathers have devised a set of democratic rules and institutions which, over 40 years, have stood the test of time. They include the federal structure, the system of political consensus—shaped partly by proportional representation, the 5 per cent. hurdle, strong political parties, and so on—the social market institutions, which introduce considerable consensus into economic and industrial decision making, and, of course, a long-term perspective, which has been such a feature of German economic success.
We should note that it is remarkable how successful the federal republic has been in tackling the huge twin problems of unification and the restructuring of the German economy within the existing democratic and social consensus framework. The process of unification may have taken longer than the optimists expected, but most fair-minded observers conclude that there will be blooming landscapes, as promised by Chancellor Kohl at the Frauenkirche in Dresden in 1990. Of course, the process has taken much longer than he expected.
At the same time as proving its democratic credentials internally, Germany has showed itself to be a very good neighbour. It is significant that the new unity of Germany, firmly tied to the west and with no enemies and territorial claims to the east—the fruits of Ostpolitik—has been accepted by its European neighbours, including, in the end, if reluctantly, by the British.
Far more unites the United Kingdom and Germany than separates them. The two countries are now economically almost entirely interdependent. Germany is Britain's largest export market, while Britain is Germany's fourth largest export market. Germany is one of the largest investors in Britain. There are 1,000 German firms located here, which bring with them hundreds of thousands of jobs. Britain is a substantial investor in Germany, including the eastern Lander. A stable and prosperous Germany is a key British interest, just as a stable and prosperous Britain is a key German interest. To put it very basically, jobs in the United Kingdom and Germany depend on each other's markets, which is real interdependence.
At the same time, we have close defence links. Both countries have been members of NATO and allies for 40 years. As the United States cuts its forces on the European mainland, British-German defence co-operation will assume an even greater importance. It is impossible to imagine defending the mainland of Europe without that strong alliance between the British and the Germans.
We are both key members of the European Union. Sadly, our relationship has been marred by quarrels and spats, especially following Britain's humiliating exit from the exchange rate mechanism, but there again, we have substantial common interests. They include: a commitment to free markets; an open European Union; extending EU membership to the east; and support for subsidiarity. I submit that a more positive line in Europe by the British Government would bring out those shared views and assumptions.
Given those common interests, it is essential that positive and sustained steps should be taken to strengthen the Anglo-German relationship. The most important priority is improved knowledge of each other's countries. Lack of knowledge allows prejudice to gain hold and, as opinion polls show, it also generates distrust. Last year, a disturbing poll showed that 48 per cent. of Germans distrusted the British, and 50 per cent. of Britons distrusted the Germans. In both cases, that was the highest percentage for attitudes to another major country. That ought to give Ministers some cause for concern.
The key is to expand existing systems of educational and youth exchanges, which are both too small and without sufficient financial backing, especially on the British side. A mass programme of exchanges is required on the Franco-German model. While doing research for my book, I found out that 10 times more is spent on Franco-German exchanges than on Anglo-German exchanges. Something must be done there.
German language teaching should be stepped up dramatically in British schools, as should the number of German courses at British universities. It is interesting and significant that a new centre for German studies at Birmingham university has mainly been financed by German, not British, firms. It is essential for young Germans and Britons to have an informed view of one another.
Industry has a responsibility. British and German firms, which depend so much on each other's markets, ought to be more proactive in expanding awareness of each other's countries. Building on the work of the many Anglo-German institutions, voluntary organisations, political parties and trades unions ought to be expanding their co-operation with their opposite numbers.
Despite all that is sometimes said about twinning, there is a lot to be said for more of it at town, city and regional levels. Two towns in my constituency are twinned with German towns, and it is about much more than just town councillors' junketing. For example, there are youth and school exchanges and so forth, which do a power of good on both sides.
Above all, we need a Government lead, especially by the British Government. I want to hear British Ministers heralding German social democratic and economic achievements. I would like to hear them say a little more often that the Germans are good democrats and have been—have proved themselves to be—good neighbours. I would like to hear them say that it is in Britain's interests to have a strong, prosperous and democratic Germany, playing a leading role in Europe.
I am sure that the Anglo-German summit communiquè will include a number of worthy, but minor, measures. I suspect, however, that the time has come for some more symbolic act of friendship. In 1963, the French and Germans signed a treaty, which was a defining moment in modern European political history. In 1995, there is surely a case for an Anglo-German—I should more properly say British-German—state treaty, which would put British-German relations on a new and more constructive footing. Such an initiative would be good not only for Britain and Germany but for Europe as well.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): We are all very grateful to the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) for his timely raising of such an important subject in the House this week. It is a pity that we have only half an hour in which to debate the subject, as a number of hon. Members clearly take an interest, and I fear that there will not be time to allow them to take part.
On Friday, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will have some discussions with the German Chancellor and Foreign Minister in Bonn. That will be the culmination of a series of meetings between Ministers of finance, trade, economy and defence, and I therefore welcome this opportunity to review the state of our bilateral relationship with such a close and important partner in Europe as Germany.
The debate is also timely because, as the hon. Gentleman said, he has just published a book on the subject. He was overly modest about it. I would be slightly suspicious of a book that had an endorsement from the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) on its dust cover, but the hon. Member for Durham, North more than redeems himself by frequent and accurate references within it to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman reminds us of my right hon. Friend's commitment for Britain
to be where we belong, at the very heart of Europe, working with our partners in building the future.


It may encourage the hon. Gentleman to know that we have acquired a copy of his book for the Foreign Office library. Having read it, I can say that it is certainly a useful contribution to Anglo-German relations.

Mr. Radice: I must correct the Minister: the leader of the Liberal party made a nice comment about a previous book, not that one.

Mr. Baldry: I would be suspicious of any author of any book about which the leader of the Liberal party makes nice comments.
This partnership is perhaps most obvious to the business community. When Britain joined the European Economic Community in 1973, bilateral British-German trade totalled £2.2 billion in both directions. In 1994, by contrast, we exported some £17.7 billion worth of goods to Germany and imported £22.7 billion. Germany was our biggest trading partner in the European Union, and only just second to the United States worldwide.
In the same year, Britain was the top attraction for German investors, who invested more than £1.5 billion in the United Kingdom, which is well ahead of German investment in the United States. Our industry is benefiting from German investment, of which BMW's purchase of Rover is but one example.
In the other direction, Britain was the fourth largest investor in Germany, with some £282 million. Around 1,000 British companies have subsidiaries in Germany. British companies have been among the leaders investing in the new German states of the former East Germany. Governments encourage, while companies take the decisions. Economically, our present and future relations are closely intertwined. That is the case politically as well.

Mr. MacShane: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Baldry: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way, because we have had one lengthy intervention in a short debate. This is a half-hour Adjournment debate, and, in fairness to the contribution of the hon. Member for Durham, North, I have a lot that I would like to say.
We recently commemorated 50 years of peace and reconciliation in Europe. Germany is a fully fledged and sovereign partner within the Union, with which we have, and will continue to have, the closest possible relations. We have been close to Germany because of the presence of British troops since the end of the war in the old West Germany; because of Britain's contribution to the establishment of democracy in the new Germany in the early years after the war; and because of our thinking on a range of issues, from the need to promote non-protectionist trade worldwide to the need to extend security and prosperity to the states of central and eastern Europe. That is all dictated by the same concerns.
The presence here of the German Chancellor and German Federal President on 6 and 7 May, and the Prime Minister's presence at commemorations in Berlin on 8 May, have served to emphasise that closeness. I am glad to say that it has also found a warm echo in the public and media response in both countries. I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments about the role of the media in ensuring a responsible approach to the way in which we view not only Germany but other countries.
The year 1995 has already been memorable in Anglo-German relations. Not all the memories were comfortable, but I am glad to say that we were both able to commemorate the end of world war two in the most appropriate way—for example, in Dresden, Hamburg, London and Berlin.
Britain and Germany are, and will remain, key players in setting out how Europe will develop over the coming years. This concerns not only the institutions of the European Union, but the Union's relationship, and our two countries' relationships, with the rest of Europe—especially with Russia and its former allies. Too much attention has been focused on the differences between Germany and the United Kingdom on certain European issues, but we are sufficiently mature democracies to accept that it is unrealistic to agree on absolutely everything. Instead, we should capitalise on the benefits we gain from a dynamic relationship.
Together we want to see a strong Europe and a free Europe. Britain and Germany are the two main bulwarks against a fortress Europe. We are both concerned about the dangers of instability in central Europe; about competitiveness at home in the face of challenges from outside Europe; about the need for a Europe which is deregulated internally and adheres strictly to the principles of subsidiarity; about the need for financial discipline in the budget; and about the need for a cohesive common foreign and security policy. These are all issues on which we have a common concern and approach.
On a large number of the fundamentals of European policy, Britain and Germany agree. Naturally, there are some aspects of the European Union on which we do not agree. Our geography, history and constitutional experiences are different. In some ways, even our ways of thinking are different. It is natural that there should be intense debate about the future of Europe. The development of the European Union is taking place at the frontier of politics. We are inventing something quite new and unique, and debate is therefore essential.
A successful Europe for the future needs to be competitive in its business and trade, strong and active in its defence and security arrangements, flexible in the development of its institutions and, above all, in touch with its peoples. Britain and Germany share these concerns.
We believe in a Europe which holds its own in the open markets of the world. The protectionist blueprint is an illusion which will not protect but destroy jobs. Free trade brings growth and prosperity. That is why we need a single market free of unnecessary regulation. Britain and Germany have together put their shoulders energetically to this wheel, with the establishment of an Anglo-German deregulation group at last year's summit. I hope that, later this week, we shall be able to explain more fully the actions which we have taken to keep this subject high on the European agenda.
On European security, we stand side by side in our convictions. We believe in a European security architecture which rests on firm foundations—the alliance's collective security guarantee and the United States' commitment. But we need to build on those solid foundations. The German constitutional court's decision last July on the possible deployment of the Bundeswehr out of area increases the scope for Germany to play her part. It also widened the range—already considerable—over which we can co-operate in defence.
Several initiatives have been implemented following last year's British-German summit to assist the countries of central and eastern Europe. For example, we jointly organised a seminar in January attended by nine of those countries, and preparation for a trilateral peacekeeping exercise with Hungary is well in hand. Indeed, there is the closest possible relationship between our armed forces. Again, I hope there will be more to say about that after the summit meeting later this week.
Britain and Germany have set much of the agenda for Europe in the last decade on issues such as budgetary discipline, subsidiarity, deregulation, tackling fraud and promoting free trade. These are things which matter to our people in their daily lives. They matter to our prosperity. It is wrong to pretend that Europe has just one motor. There are several, and the British-German motor is one of the more important. It runs rather quietly, as good motors usually do, but is none the less powerful.
Consultation and co-operation with German colleagues at official level has become an inherent part of our lives. In the case of my own Department and the diplomatic service, for example, there are two members of the German foreign service working in the FCO, and two British diplomats working in the German foreign ministry in Bonn. Overseas, our embassies work closely together to our mutual benefit, sharing information and—in one or two places—sharing premises.
For Ministers, too, a close relationship and consultation exists. This week, for example, the federal German Minister for education, science, research and technology has been visiting the UK for talks with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Ministers of finance, trade and economy and defence have had profitable discussions in recent weeks, of which the Prime Minister and Chancellor Kohl will take account in this week's summit.
My right hon. Friends have been much encouraged by the pragmatism of our German partners. The results of those deliberations should be announced on Friday, especially on defence and on increasing mutual public awareness, particularly among young people. I agree very much with what the hon. Gentleman said about the importance of ensuring that there is the greatest understanding between our two countries, particularly among young people.
So much for official co-operation. The Anglo-German relationship does not rest solely on contacts between Governments. What about links between communities? A directory of British-German co-operation put out jointly by the German embassy and the FCO earlier this year lists more than 12 pages of towns with twins in Germany. I suspect that the constituency towns of most hon. Members are linked with towns in Germany, and the towns sometimes exchange strange things. For example, Banbury is twinned with Hennef, which has a British post box, telephone box and other artefacts in its main square. We have received similar gifts from Hennef.
Latest estimates suggest that there are around 8,000 Germans studying at British universities, and around 2,500 British students in Germany. Although at school level there are no central statistics, a best guess would be that around 20,000 schoolchildren are involved in school exchanges each year.
Yet despite this solid foundation, in the subjective field of attitudes and mutual perceptions, both countries seem sometimes to be stuck in a time warp. It is human nature

to prefer familiar prejudices to new facts, and to keep existing opinions rather than look at the evidence. Germany, more than most, suffers the effects of this in the UK. As the hon. Gentleman said, opinion polls show that there is still too much mistrust between Britons and Germans. That is regrettable.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister intends to discuss with Chancellor Kohl what further steps the two Governments might take to help expose old stereotypes for what they are. There are a number of measures to be considered, with the objective of improving access to information on each other's countries, and increasing contacts and exchanges still further.
Just as we must ensure that there is clear understanding among the people of our two countries of the realities of life, so we must ensure that there is a clear understanding between politicians of both countries. Among politicians, there is sometimes a temptation to create bogeys where Germany is concerned. One of those bogeys is that our views and the views of Germany are diametrically opposed.
I do not think that that is the case. We do not agree on everything with the Germans—nor does any other member state. Each nation has its own traditions and its own objectives for the forthcoming intergovernmental conference, the outcome of which must be agreed by all. But there is much on which we do agree with the Germans.
We both believe in a liberal, free-trading and competitive Europe. We both believe in an outward-looking Europe, and in the importance of enlarging Europe. We both believe in the importance of subsidiarity in Europe, and we both want to deregulate Europe. As substantial net contributors, both Germany and ourselves want to see value for money in the European Union, and proper financial control.
Another bogey raised too often about Germany among politicians in this country is that the Germans will pursue a federalist agenda in 1996. I suspect that there are some in Germany who still subscribe to a vision of the future of the European Union as a federal super-state. But it is more important to look at what German politicians have been saying. Chancellor Kohl made it clear when he said:
We do not want a European 'superstate' … In a Europe of the future, we will remain Germans, Britons, Italians or Frenchmen.
He clearly subscribes to a Europe of nation states. Only last week, Werner Hoyer, the German Minister of State for Europe and study group representative, said of the IGC:
The wheel does not have to be reinvented. But the bearings … have to be checked to ensure that they are functioning … properly".
That does not sound like a bid for radical federalism to me. The people of Europe do not want a centralised, interventionist Europe, and it is not what their economies need. That is why we have made it clear that, if such proposals are made at the intergovernmental conference, we shall not accept them.
In 1995, we have shown how far our two countries have been reconciled since the war, and how much progress has been made. Now is the time to build on that progress and move forward. I hope that I have shown how the Government are doing exactly that. It is right that we


should be aware of Germany's economic and political strengths in Europe. We can acknowledge how far Germany has come—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We now move to the debate on the smuggling of tobacco and alcohol.

Tobacco and Alcohol Smuggling

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I am delighted to have this opportunity to continue to remind the Treasury and my hon. Friend the Paymaster General of the concern that a number of my hon. Friends and I feel about the smuggling of tobacco and alcohol.
In the current climate, it is difficult to balance the various claims. Some claim that the supply of tobacco and alcohol to vulnerable groups has not increased. But those of us who know of this problem are very much aware that more and more cheap tobacco and alcohol is available for consumption by them. Our high tax policy has been effective and successful in the past—the UK is one of the few countries in the world where the consumption of tobacco has gone down largely because of that policy—but if no tax is paid, that deterrent effect disappears.
The tobacco and alcohol lobby is crying foul because of the volume of smuggled tobacco and alcohol, while the health lobby seems to say that there is no noticeable impact on vulnerable groups. We must also try to balance the fact that we have low official claims by the Inland Revenue of the amount that is lost through the smuggling of tobacco and alcohol with the fact that the tobacco and alcohol lobby alleges, and in some cases can prove, huge effects on our revenue.
My personal interest in this matter came about not because of those conflicting claims but because, in my constituency on the south coast, I see the direct effects of smuggling on many people and businesses. Newsagents find that their sales of rolling tobacco papers have shot up, while they are selling small quantities of hand-rolling tobacco.
Off-licences tell me of the offers of cheap and obviously smuggled alcohol which turn up at their back doors. Pubs and clubs also say that they have had knocks on the back door with offers of cheap alcohol. It is difficult for them to resist when they know that, in these hard times, their competitors down the road may be succumbing to the temptation of cheap supplies and making larger profits. I have no difficulty in understanding the problems that people have and the temptations to which they succumb, and I make no moral statement of what is right or wrong, especially given that the south coast, particularly my constituency, has a history of smuggling that goes back to the 18th century.
I wanted to bring this issue to the attention of the House today because I recently received a witty company report from the Tobacco Alliance about a company called Tobacco Smugglers and Co. It went through the profit and loss account of a mythical company that was making approximately one trip abroad every day, and estimated that the company could make a profit of £5 million a year. That is not an insubstantial sum of money, and it brought home the issues surrounding the importation of cheap tobacco and alcohol.
Evidence of my eyes and ears has, more than anything else, made me more and more concerned about the subject. I am particularly concerned about the health of those who can get cheap supplies. I am fascinated that those involved in lobbying on health issues find it so difficult to come to terms with the fact that vulnerable groups such as the young, among whom tobacco smoking


is increasing, have access to much cheaper cigarettes. They cannot seem to grasp the threat which that poses to young people's health in the long term.
One of the most profitable and easily smuggled forms of tobacco is hand-rolling tobacco, which goes to a different group: those who already smoke. I suspect that, the more that such people have access to cheap hand-rolling tobacco, the more they will smoke. In the long run, GPs' surgeries and hospitals throughout the country will find an increase in chest diseases, lung cancers, and all the diseases that we have tried so hard to reduce by means of high taxation.
I should like the various health charities to reconsider their policies to take account of what is happening on the ground. A recently published occasional paper from the Centre for Health Economics at York university, entitled "Should cross-border shopping affect tax policy?", concludes:
Incentives to engage in CBS"—
cross-border shopping—
are small, available data does not indicate a large increase in cross-channel journeys or sharp falls in UK sales, the economic effects of substantial tax cuts are uncertain and may have detrimental health and social consequences.
That smacks of an ostrich-like attitude.
We must also look at the associated effects on the rule of law. If there is one country that prides itself on being ruled, as far as possible, by a legal system that is approved by its citizens, it is the United Kingdom. But because of the ease with which tobacco and alcohol can be smuggled, we are undermining that law.
It is easy for the licensed trade to get hold of cheap alcohol and tobacco, and it affects honest traders. When we go around rest homes, schools and industrial estates, we see the availability of that cheap source of supply. It makes a mockery of both police and customs when the general population can get their hands on what they well know are illegal and smuggled products.
We must ensure that never again do I sit at a table having lunch with nice, middle-class people, four of whom smoke and admit to the fact that they do not pay the full price for cigarettes. If the middle class admits that, we are returning to the abuse and undermining of the rule of law that existed in the 18th century.
If we are lucky, we see small articles in our national papers about prosecutions, such as when the Eastbourne cigarette smuggler was sent down, or the group of Barnsley miners were caught. Trade papers may cover those matters better, but they do not reach the national consciousness, and the bulk of people are coming to believe that smuggling is legitimate.
Unfortunately, I must also tell my hon. Friend the Paymaster General that, while efforts at prevention are admirable, in the long term they are ineffective. I base that on research that I have done into the history of smuggling in the 18th century, and on current costs. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would disprove those statements some time, because I would be less sceptical about prevention if I knew that it was cost-effective.
It has been shown that, historically, the valiant and complex arrangements that were made to try to prevent the smuggling of tea, brandy, lace and all the other goods that are so romantically associated with smuggling, cost considerably more than the goods that were ever prevented from entering this country. I fear that we are going down that route again.
The latest figures that I have been able to find show that the employment costs of the increased number of excise verification officers whom Customs and Excise has rightly hired are about £7.2 million a year. The revenue value of the goods recovered, at the latest date that I have been able to find—in more than a year—is slightly more than £6 million. We are obviously already losing money on our prevention system.
I very much hope that my hon. Friend will be able to disprove those figures, but if not, we need to consider carefully whether prevention is working and how cost-effective it is.
There are many Members in the Chamber who would agree with me that the anecdotal evidence of the ineffectiveness of prevention continues to encourage the public to believe that they can get away with smuggling. Anyone who has gone to Calais will tell of the 40-tonne trucks returning from the continent empty, picking up beer and moving it through Dover.
I am told by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) that there is a constant trail of Transits coming through the docks, often with three or four people, many of them saying, "This is for personal consumption"—which is quite all right, and I have no quarrel with that—"This is for my daughter's wedding," "This is for the great party we have promised ourselves for our 25th wedding anniversary," or whatever.
However, the ordinary member of the public sees vast quantities of wine, spirits, cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco going through Dover docks unhindered, unchecked. That cannot be helpful for the image of customs officers, who are trying hard to do a good job in difficult circumstances.
I realise that many of the more sophisticated smugglers are checked up on and followed outside the docks to try to obtain a better picture of the distribution pattern, so that one is able to arrest those who are involved in smuggling on a much more serious and substantial scale. However, the image that the public have of the acceptability of vast quantities of tobacco and alcohol coming in unchecked, which most people suspect will be sold on, one way or another, greatly damages the role and authority of customs.
We also have, as an extension of the way round the controls, the current controversy on tobacco by post from companies based outside the United Kingdom. We expect a pronouncement on that case on Friday. I suspect that, whichever way that pronouncement goes—I know that the Government and the European Commission agree that tobacco by post should be opposed—any judgment will be pursued much further up the line for final decision.
Whichever way that goes, if there is any loophole by which tobacco and alcohol can be sold direct to the customer by post, one suspects—indeed knows—that the large tobacco and alcohol companies will feel that they must join in. It is not only cheeky young entrepreneurs who will feel that they can get away with it. The larger companies will go down the same route, to protect themselves. That reduces the single market, and the policy of high taxation, to farce.
The tobacco subsidies paid by the European Commission to farmers in several countries in the European Union are also farcical. In 1994, nearly £1 billion was paid in subsidies. We do know that many jobs depend on the continuing farming of tobacco, and the


Spanish embassy tells me that, in Spain alone, more than 800,000 people are engaged in tobacco farming. Equally, I welcome the fact that there is no longer any intervention provision for tobacco in the European Union, and that subsidies are no longer available for destroying unusable and unwanted tobacco.
I ask my hon. Friend the Paymaster General to urge on the Agriculture Ministers a reform of the common agricultural policy to end those subsidies, and perhaps to use that money to help farmers to adjust to producing new products that are so new that they may not already receive CAP subsidies. We can then start to change the CAP and bring it closer to the market. What better way to start than by abolishing tobacco farming?
I have outlined the problems. It is always easy to produce problems, but I also want to offer a few solutions. I am sure that they will not be new to my hon. Friend.
The few solutions that I produce are, of course, not the only ones. The parliamentary beer group is investigating the issue, and doubtless will come up with further solutions. I know that many other organisations and groups are seeking how best to amend the rules and regulations to end this unfortunate trade.
I have said that, in my opinion, prevention is not cost-effective. Having said that, in the short run there is nothing else that we can do but continue to use it, and make it more cost-effective.
I urge on my hon. Friend the thought that it should be made more obvious to the general public that, if one indulges in illegal importation, there is a much greater chance that one will be caught for small amounts. Larger smugglers should have much higher-profile prosecutions, so that the national papers carry more than an inch of coverage of the outcome of the case.
I would, in the longer term, draw parallels with what happened in the 18th century. Smuggling died away only after Sir Robert Peel, Disraeli and Gladstone reduced the duties. I fear that, in principle, we must go down that route. We have built a new and lucrative smuggling trade and it is up to us to dismantle it. It is obviously difficult because there are cultural and taxation differences, and Spain, France, Portugal and Belgium will see no need to increase their duties.
However, I want the health lobby to become much more proactive in urging its opposite numbers on the continent to go down the route of a high taxation policy. I was pleased to notice that Action on Smoking and Health suggested precisely that. It must persuade not only its counterparts but the other lobbies in this country to do so. The Department of Health should also raise the profile of the issue on the continent, so that it becomes much more politically and culturally acceptable for tobacco and alcohol duty to increase.
We must ensure that the European Commission does its work. I understand that we continue to await proposals from the Commission for ways to tackle the problem, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Paymaster General will be able to give me some positive news of what is happening in that regard.
Only when national Governments act together to work out a solution which takes the profit out of smuggling will we be able to solve the problem. It is not an entirely British one, because other countries also need to face the

reality of the threat to health that we have faced for so long and to work together to try to solve the smuggling problem.
In the coming Budget, I hope that the Treasury will no longer continue to use excise duty as the milch cow to solve all its revenue problems. Even the Institute for Fiscal Studies is changing its mind and beginning to realise that, apart from beer duty, no increase in revenue would be obtained by an increase in excise duty. It was not quite so firm about that a few months ago.
We must, please, ensure that we change our mindset, as I have urged the health lobby to do, in terms of the revenue that comes from tobacco and alcohol. We must move towards a system where the profit is taken out of smuggling and we get rid of that lucrative but distressing trade.

The Paymaster General (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) has taken a close interest in this subject. She has been active in trying to protect the legitimate interests of her constituents, and of the alcohol and tobacco trade more generally, for at least as long as she has been a Member of the House. She has shown by her speech that she knows a great deal about the subject.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the single market in Europe has brought great benefits to the British economy. The abolition of routine frontier controls has led to administrative savings, and also brought about greater freedoms of movement for goods and people. It has also created problems, or highlighted existing ones, particularly connected with cross-border shopping and the smuggling of excise duty goods.
It is important to distinguish between commercial imports, which are taxed at United Kingdom rates in the normal way; legitimate cross-border shopping, where private individuals bring back goods for their own use and consumption; and those who illegally abuse cross-border shopping—what we call bootlegging or smuggling. We are most anxious to do something about that last category.
My hon. Friend mentioned the differences in the estimates given by the trade, Customs and Excise and other bodies when trying to assess the amount of revenue lost through cross-border shopping or smuggling. It is a statistical minefield, but I am glad to say that considerable progress is being made in reconciling the differences, which are frequently due to differences of definition rather than differences in the underlying data. We hope to publish that work later in the summer.
It is important to recognise that the duty receipts from tobacco and alcohol are holding up quite well, but I concede that, although our duty receipts are firm, some individual traders can be seriously hit. They represent one of the direct effects of smuggling described so well by my hon. Friend. I do not wish to be complacent about the difficulties faced by some parts of the trade.
As for smuggling, we have to be clear that the goods in question are not brought back into this country for personal consumption, but are sold on. That is a crime, which we take seriously.
My hon. Friend made a fair point about the health effects of smuggling. Certainly, higher tobacco prices have helped to reduce consumption, which has had a good effect on the nation's health. Perhaps we should be alert


to a secondary effect of the pricing, because, if tobacco is bought cheaply from abroad or smuggled in and sold in uncontrolled outlets, that may have an opposite effect on health, particularly if that tobacco is hand-rolling tobacco, which tends to be stronger.
My hon. Friend also raised an important point about the CAP tobacco regime. It is one of the dottier features of the European Union that substantial amounts of European taxpayers' money is used to subsidise the production of tobacco, which tends to be of a particularly harmful type, while the Commission at the same time is concerned about health and lung cancer. The tobacco regime currently costs about £940 million a year. I am advised that tobacco is the most heavily subsidised crop per hectare in Europe, and receives a subsidy more than 20 times that for cereals. That regime is to be reconsidered in 1996, when the Government will press for its reform.
As for our own responsibilities in countering smuggling, I wish to emphasise to my hon. Friend—I think that she knows it, but I should like to put it on the record—that we take our task extremely seriously. To that end, excise verification officers, or EVOs, have been appointed to carry out visits, particularly inland, to pubs, clubs, markets, restaurants and so on to check for smuggled alcohol or tobacco that perhaps is being resold. Those EVOs work closely with the police and local trading standards officers.
There are about 250 single market excise officers, and during the financial year 1994–95 they made nearly 3,000 detections, including goods with a revenue value of just over £6 million. They have so far successfully prosecuted 466 people, and prison sentences of up to 27 months and

fines of up to £10,000 have been imposed. So far, 717 vehicles engaged in such activities have been seized. The goods intercepted are also seized. Civil penalties are available for less serious offences, but more serious ones are taken through the criminal courts.
A successful 24-hour hot line has also been launched, so that people can give information in confidence to Customs and Excise. My hon. Friend mentioned people who are aware of smuggling, and I hope that they, whether ordinary members of the public or in the trade, will not hesitate to give information in confidence to Customs and Excise via that hot line number, which has been widely advertised.
We are aware, of course, that it is the duty differential between this country and the continent which provides the incentive for much of the cross-border shopping and smuggling. We would welcome moves towards greater approximation with other member states, but we must be realistic and recognise that that will be a slow process, because those member states take different positions on that.
A radical and immediate fall in our higher duty rates would be extremely expensive. For example, it would cost some £6.5 billion per year to reduce our tobacco and alcohol rates to French levels. I think that my hon. Friend would agree that that is unrealistic in present fiscal circumstances.
We are fully aware of the difficulties, and we are determined to do all we can to crack down on the illegal and anti-social smuggling of tobacco and alcohol products that undermines the legitimate trade which my hon. Friend has done so much to support.

York Carriageworks

Mr. Hugh Bayley: The news that broke today that neither ABB nor GEC Alsthom will be submitting bids to build the next tranche of Networker trains for London commuters is the latest twist in the long and sorry saga of the sacrifice of Britain's manufacturing industry on the altar of rail privatisation. The Minister knows from the debate that we had on this subject a week ago that York feels betrayed by the unnecessary closure of the York carriageworks. ABB, which owns the works, feels betrayed because it invested £50 million against Department of Transport expectations that a large number of new commuter trains would be needed. As a result of today's announcement, Kent commuters will feel betrayed because they were promised that they would continue to receive new trains after the first 16 are delivered this autumn—they are being built at York—until all 800 antiquated vehicles in the Kent Coast fleet are replaced. That will not occur now because neither ABB nor its competitor GEC is prepared to submit a tender under the terms that the British Railways Board and the Government have laid down in the tender documents.
Since December last year when British Rail announced, to everyone's surprise, that it could see no business case for ordering new trains for the Kent Coast line, the Government have engaged in a cynical exercise to convince the public that rail privatisation is not the cause of the problem, but that the fault lies with British Rail for dragging its feet and with ABB for failing to submit competitive bids. Last week the Minister told the House that he had been pressing for an order in recent months. He said:
I hope that the hon. Member for York will be generous enough to acknowledge that I have not been an entirely passive observer of those events".—[Official Report, 17 May 1995; Vol. 260, c. 385.]
I acknowledged that fact and perhaps I was mistaken in doing so. In time-honoured fashion, this morning I received, anonymously, a draft of a letter that I believe was sent yesterday to the Minister by the director of the Railway Industry Association. In it, the director, Mr. Gillan, says:
In the light of the current dearth of orders for rolling stock and in particular of the recent announcement by ABB to close their York works you may be surprised at the decision of our two members not to bid for this much needed order.
However, the simple fact is that the terms under which bids have been invited are so unreasonable as to effectively preclude the making of compliant bids.
In particular the requirement that the train leasing period could be for a maximum of seven years, with no assurances as to the likely usage of the trains for the rest of their working lives of up to 40 years, meant that no one could reasonably have been expected to bid. Indeed such are the terms that we are left to wonder what the point of the exercise was.
Similar comments were made in the statement that ABB communicated to employees at the York factory yesterday. It said:
Of particular concern is the duration of the lease where the Customer is unable to guarantee a lease period beyond the year 2004. This coupled with the uncertainty surrounding the forthcoming privatisation of the Rolling Stock Leasing Companies … and the future leasing market, means that we are unable to guarantee recovering our capital build costs, and it is clearly not good business sense to undertake orders on this basis.

I support the use of private finance to build rolling stock. Indeed, it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) who first proposed leasing as a means of providing finance for new rolling stock. The latest developments revealed in the correspondence that I have just read to the House show that the Government's private finance initiative has been hijacked by the Treasury and turned into an excuse for cutting public investment, while at the same time preventing private investment in public services.
One has only to look at the Department of Transport's two most recent annual reports to see the scale of the squeeze on public resources that are available to the railway. Last year's departmental expenditure plans anticipated a cut of £292 million in the external financing limit for the railways. As a result of the Chancellor's statement last November, the funding gap has increased. That is recorded in this year's departmental expenditure plans, which show that the cut has been increased to £424 million for the railways this year.
That would not matter if the private finance initiative was making up the difference, but it is not. That is the cause of the problem: the private finance initiative should be freed from the Treasury's shackles. What is the Department doing about that? I also repeat a question that I asked in the debate last Wednesday but to which I did not receive an answer. How will the Government respond to ABB's statement that the only way to save the York works is to agree to a follow-on order for more trains of the type that it is building at the moment, which are the trains that were specified and ordered for the Kent Coast line? That is the only way to save the York works from closure and it is the only way that the Government can fulfil their promise to Kent commuters to provide the new trains that they need so desperately.
The response in York to the closure announcement of less than a fortnight ago has been immediate and involves a wide range of agencies. The city council, North Yorkshire training and enterprise council and ABB have pledged large sums of money to try to deal with the immediate problems. But the scale of those problems is enormous. The Government have created the hiatus in investment that they said would not result from rail privatisation. That has occurred and now the Government must help the local elected authority and other local agencies to find a solution. The problem needs a multi-departmental response from the Government.
I have a number of questions, some of which are directed to the Department of Transport, and I hope that the Minister will answer them today; others are addressed to other Government Departments. I hope that the Minister will undertake to refer those questions to the appropriate Ministers so that I may receive a response.
When the Railways Bill came before the House, York city council commissioned Steer, Davis, Gleave, a firm of transport consultants, to produce a report estimating the impact of rail privatisation on rail employment in York. It anticipated very substantial job losses. At the time, the right hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), the then Minister of State, disputed the figures. He said that York was running scared and he agreed to establish the York Rail Forum, which he attended on a number of occasions, together with representatives of the local business community and elected representatives of all parties from the York area.
Since the present Minister was appointed, there has been one meeting of the York Rail Forum. We urgently need to hold another meeting, which the Minister will attend, to address the problems. I hope that the Minister will agree to invite a representative from the Government's Yorkshire and Humberside office so that we receive a response on a genuinely cross-departmental basis.
In 1992, when the House was considering the Railways Bill 4,690 people were employed by the railways in York—3,090 by British Rail and 1,600 by the carriageworks owned by ABB. By the end of last year, that figure had fallen by 1,190 to 2,750 employed by British Rail and 750 at the York works. If the works close, by the end of this year the figure will have fallen to about 2,500, taking account of the British Rail jobs that have already been declared redundant this year.
York is highly dependent on the rail industry. At the start of the process, about one job in 12 in the city was a railway job. What will the Department do to ensure that some of the new railway agencies created as part of the privatisation process are relocated in York, so that the jobs that have been lost will be replaced by other railway jobs? Will he consider the possibility of the Department of Transport moving some of its own jobs to the city of York? Other Government Departments—the Department for Education, the Land Registry, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—have done so because of its central location and its good communications and because it is a sensible place to base public servants.
York, through its own efforts, has attracted a considerable amount of inward investment and jobs in the past few years. The city council opened a one-stop business advice shop in 1986, well before the Government's business links ideas, and its partnership for prosperity campaign, which it runs jointly with the chamber of commerce, has attracted some 2,000 new jobs to York since 1989. In addition to the jobs from Government agencies, investment came from Nestlè, which has invested £150 million in its York factory, from ABB, which has invested £50 million, from General Accident, which has invested £15 million and from the Shepherd Building Group, which is building its new corporate headquarters in the city. Other companies, such as Smith and Nephew and Samsung, have opened major centres of employment in the York area—Samsung has opened a factory and Smith and Nephew has opened a research centre. The College of Law has opened a new campus in the city of York.
That success must be set against a background of massive job losses in York's traditional industries. Between 1992—when rail privatisation started—and 1995, unemployment nationally has fallen by 13 per cent. In York, during the same period, it has increased by 5 per cent. In 1992, unemployment in York was below the national average: now it is above the national average—8.5 per cent., according to the Government's benefit count, and 12.1 per cent. according to their labour force survey.
The York economy also has structural problems. The loss of manufacturing jobs has been more than twice as fast in York than the national average, and so too has the loss of jobs in construction. York is now more dependent on part-time jobs than the national average. In Great Britain as a whole in 1991, 26 per cent. of the work force

was part time—roughly one in four. In York, the figure was 32.1 per cent. Almost a third of the jobs that remain in York are now part time.
We need assistance from the Government, both to rebuild and to restructure the local economy. We need Government Departments to work together and not to pull in different directions. The regional allocation for the training for work scheme does not allow resources to be diverted to the city of York because of our present problems. North Yorkshire training and enterprise council therefore gets no additional resources as a result of the ABB closure. That is a matter on which the Department of Employment could act to make changes and I hope that it will.
York does not have assisted area status, although the areas that are in receipt of the benefits of assisted area status are being reviewed. I hope that the Government will look favourably on including York as an assisted area as a result of the current review. We are eligible for support under the Government's single regeneration budget. I hope that that support will be forthcoming, although the city council has a particular problem in putting together an application, because the outline applications have to be in by next month.
We could get help from the Department of the Environment, through English partnerships, to generate new uses for redundant railway land, not just ABB land but other land around York station. The Department of the Environment should reflect York's pressing needs in its standard spending assessment for future years. At the moment, the city of York is not eligible for EU objective 2 funds, the criteria for which include the following reference. They are for areas
which have recorded substantial job losses over the last three years or are experiencing or are threatened with such losses in industrial sectors of decisive importance for their economic development, including those losses brought about by industrial changes and changes in production systems, with a consequent serious worsening of unemployment in those areas.
All those factors are reflected in York's current need for jobs in view of the dramatic and unnecessary decline that we face in manufacturing. I hope that the Government will support York's bid for objective 2 status.
Part of the job losses in the area are a result of the "Options for Change" downsizing of the armed forces. We have lost 230 pay corps jobs at Imphal barracks. We have seen the closure of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers workshop at Strensall and the engineering park at Hessay, on the outskirts of York. The Government have been allocated £74 million by the European Union under the KONVER programme and they will announce later this year how that money is to be split between local areas. I hope that the overall employment situation in York will mean that a fair share of resources come to York, because it will be that much harder for redundant MOD employees to find replacement jobs.
The Department of Trade and Industry must work with York city council and the Yorkshire and Humberside development association to direct overseas investment to York. The Government have a key role to play in identifying leads for people locally to follow up and in influencing decisions. If the York works close, for all the wrong reasons 400,000 sq ft of newly refurbished industrial premises and new offices will come on the market at the same time as 750 skilled engineering


workers. That provides an opportunity for the Government to help the city of York locally to pick up the pieces from the closure by marketing the opportunity of premises and skilled workers. The DTI should play an active part with the local authority and the company, of course, in marketing the site.
York is a great city. It is facing enormous economic problems at the moment. It is doing a great deal to help itself, but it needs help from the Government, because the scale of the problems is so great. I must ask the Minister: will the Government step away from their laissez-faire attitude, because they have, particularly on railways and defence, precipitated those job losses and they must work with the local agencies to help the city of York to replace them?

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): The hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) was right to secure this further debate on the York carriageworks, although both he and I regret the need for it. I acknowledge his efforts and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) on behalf of York and ABB's employees. I know that they have campaigned hard to avert the closure and that last week's announcement was a great disappointment.
ABB's decision is very sad news for the work force and the city of York. I recognise the proud railway tradition in the city and the importance of rail engineering to the local economy. The hon. Gentleman and I disagree fundamentally about railway privatisation but we can certainly agree on what a blow the redundancies are.
The closure of the York works is a commercial decision by ABB. It reflects the company's need to rationalise its sites following the completion of major contracts for Central line trains and Eurotrams, the failure to win recent orders for Jubilee line, Northern line and Heathrow express trains, and a cyclical fall in orders following the peak of investment in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
The fact is that the company does not have sufficient work to keep open all three of its present works. Nor, with the recent exception of the Eurotrams order, has it been able to attract sufficient export orders for York to supplement domestic orders won in a very competitive market.
I understand that the company could not justify retaining all its plants when either the York or Derby plant is likely to have sufficient capacity to meet forecast demand for new trains. The scale of surplus capacity is such that the company considers that one plant can accommodate all likely opportunities.
In the late 1980s, British Rail benefited from the boom conditions affecting the London economy. Central London employment levels and high personal disposable incomes helped to drive up Network SouthEast's revenues in real terms by more than 10 per cent. between 1986–87 and 1989–90.
British Rail's projections then of the need for new Networkers were made in good faith but were blown off course by the recession. In 1990–91, it was evident that the boom was ending and there followed three consecutive years in which revenues fell in real terms.
Commuting into central London fell by 20 per cent. and was to reach a 20-year low in 1993–94; only recently have there been signs that the tide may have turned. That is the background to the lower than expected orders for new Networker trains.
No manufacturer can expect the right to supply what it wants to supply when it wants to supply it, regardless of the customer's requirements. ABB must compete for whatever contracts are available in the marketplace. Part of ABB's problem is that it has failed to win enough of the orders in the marketplace to secure the work that it needs.
Faced with that situation, the company decided to concentrate its efforts in Derby where it has its headquarters. ABB's announcement emphasised that it was still very much in the United Kingdom train building business, and that it would compete aggressively for orders at home and abroad. It retains the capacity to build new trains when demand increases and it can win orders. Orders still under construction by ABB consist of the current £150 million Networker order for BR, and a £60 million contract for mail trains for the Post Office.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, in recognition of the United Kingdom industry's position, BR issued invitations to tender for a further tranche of Networker trains in March. That decision provided the opportunity for manufacturers to make competitive bids that meet the criteria of the private finance initiative. An opportunity to tender was created, but it was up to manufacturers to take advantage of it. One can lead a horse to water but one cannot make it drink.
The hon. Gentleman questioned whether the private finance initiative can work. I must refer him to the successful conclusion of the £400 million contract for the supply of trains for the Northern line. That was the private finance initiative in action, and it worked.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the basis on which bidders were invited to tender. It was a demanding specification for a substantial transfer of risk, but bidders who put in a compliant bid were also able to propose alternative packages, particularly with regard to the length of lease, and so on, if they wished to do so. They could also have sought undertakings from the franchising director to underwrite the continued use of trains under such leasing arrangements under the provisions of the Railways Act 1993.
The hon. Gentleman pressed me again to direct BR to reopen the option attached to the existing contract. I understand that the extension to June of the follow-up option was offered unilaterally by ABB and accepted by the British Railways Board without any commitment. I can understand why the hon. Gentleman makes that request again but it would not be appropriate for me to direct BR in that way. It must be a matter for BR's commercial judgment as to when and on what terms it procures rolling stock.
The present £150 million leasing deal was a transitional measure which it was recognised at the time did not meet the full requirements of the private finance initiative. In particular, the residual value risk transferred fell well short of private finance initiative requirements. In addition, as the hon. Gentleman knows, BR concluded earlier this year that there was no commercial justification for the immediate placing of an order for replacement of the Kent Coast fleet, at least if the contractual terms on


offer were no different from and no better than those under which the earlier £150 million leasing deal had been concluded.
It has been suggested that changes to the vehicle specification in the present tender invitation would have extended the time scale for completing the tenders or constructing the trains, but that is not the case either.
The recent invitation to tender was based firmly on the specification of the existing Networker express trains under construction by ABB, and it attached a premium to proven designs. It was open to bidders, at their own choice, to offer variations to that specification if they believed a better or cheaper train could thereby be produced.
During the debate on rail services last Wednesday I said in reply to the hon. Gentleman that I would discuss with my ministerial colleagues in the relevant Departments the need to address employment problems in York. In addition, I shall consider further the suggestions made today and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby and my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale in due course. The day after the debate I wrote to my colleagues in other Departments. In addition, my Department is liaising with the Government office for Yorkshire and Humberside and with the Employment Service.
For some time the local office of the Employment Service and North Yorkshire training and enterprise council have been in close contact with ABB and other agencies. I understand that the Employment Service and the TEC have since recognised that this is a large-scale redundancy and therefore eligibility can be relaxed for Employment Service programmes and training for work. They stand ready to give the maximum possible assistance to all those who will be affected by the job losses. That assistance will supplement the help that ABB, the TEC and York city council are providing.
As regards the single regeneration budget, I understand that the Government office for Yorkshire and Humberside has already shown its willingness to discuss any proposals which the partners in York may have, at the earliest possible stage.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall continue to take a close interest, with my colleagues in other Departments, in the ways in which we can, across Departments, help the city of York to tackle the problems that have arisen from these most unwelcome redundancies. I assure him that he will not see a laissez-faire reaction from the Government on the issue.

Mr. Bayley: Will the Minister say whether he would attend an urgent meeting of the York Rail Forum and whether the Government are willing to allow a representative from the Government office for Yorkshire and Humberside to attend?

Mr. Watts: I would certainly be willing to attend a meeting of the York Rail Forum. The attendance of someone from the Government office is not directly a matter for me. I will certainly put that, with the hon. Gentleman's other suggestions, to my colleagues in the relevant Departments.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—

It being half past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order [19 December].

Private Business

ACCOMMODATION LEVEL CROSSINGS BILL [Lords]

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Thursday 25 May.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Whisky Industry

Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of people employed in the Scotch whisky industry currently; and how many were employed in 1990. [24221]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): The Scotch Whisky Association, in its latest annual review, states that 13,804 people in 1994 were employed by its member companies in the Scottish whisky industry, compared with 16,376 in 1990.

Mrs. Ewing: Will the Minister confirm that the figures that he has just given are taken from the Scottish register of employment, which takes no account of establishments that employ 11 or fewer employees? In that context, does he accept that the rise in the excise duty on Scotch whisky since the Government came to power has been about 30 per cent. and that the decline in the home market has sent out the wrong message to foreign markets? Does he therefore agree that we have to take tender steps to ensure that the Scotch whisky industry is protected and that there will be no further mothballing as there has been at Tamnavulin, Tullibardine and Bruichladdich?

Mr. Kynoch: I think that the hon. Lady was, unfortunately, not listening to my reply. I said clearly that the Scotch Whisky Association gave those figures in its latest annual review. They were not from the source to which she referred. The hon. Lady might also be aware of the fact that, in the past 10 years, the real rate of duty on spirits has fallen by some 16 per cent. in real terms. I think that she is giving a slightly distorted story. In the industry in general, since 1980, exports have gone up from £746 million in 1980 to over £2 billion in 1994. I believe that the industry is attacking its markets very aggressively and successfully.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not the Government's job to second-guess the Scotch whisky industry on how it should run its business but that it most certainly is the Government's job to create a tax environment at home, and to influence the tax environment in Europe, to enable the Scotch whisky industry to continue to be Scotland's greatest exporter, excluding oil and gas? That will continue, provided that we have a tax regime that encourages the industry to expand and not to contract.

Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend is right. It is not the Government's job to intervene in production scheduling in the industry. With regard to taxation, I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a speech in the House on 13 December last year, said that he was very sympathetic to the case for removing distortion of the duties charged on, for example, wine as opposed to spirits and to maintaining a freeze on alcohol duties for the benefit of the Scotch whisky industry. He reaffirmed his

intention to continue along the road to revising duty differentials following the increase in the 1994 Budget that he had forced upon him by some hon. Members.

Mr. McKelvey: Is the Minister aware that Saturday the 27th of this month marks the quincentennial celebration of the discovery or the invention of Scotch whisky? To assist the Scotch whisky industry with all its magnificent efforts in exports, the Government should remind the Chancellor that he put the 25p après-Budget additional tax on whisky in a fit of pique because the House democratically voted not to allow him to put the second tranche of VAT on fuel.

Mr. Kynoch: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to the 27th of this month because I gather that there will be an open day at many distilleries, and that the hon. Gentleman will be leading the visitations to some of them. He referred to taxation and to what the Chancellor had to do in his second run at the Budget. What he had to do was something that the Labour party is totally incapable of doing—balance the Budget. The Labour party has proposals for a tax-raising Scottish Parliament, which would mean that it would have to address the problem of balancing the Budget. If it could say clearly to Scottish business and to the Scottish people that they would definitely not face a taxation increase, the hon. Gentleman might address taxation issues in a more responsible manner.

Electricity and Gas Industries

Mr. Ingram: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the numbers of jobs lost in Scotland in (a) the electricity supply industry and (b) the gas industry since privatisation; and if he will make a statement. [24223]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): It is a matter for the private utility companies to structure their organisations and working practices in a way that best meets consumer and commercial interests.

Mr. Ingram: What the Secretary of State has not told us is that many hundreds of jobs have been lost as a result of the privatisation of the electricity and gas industries. If the Secretary of State had given those figures, they would have proven sufficient reason for those currently employed at Scottish Nuclear to fear its privatisation. Will the Secretary of State give one simple guarantee to the work force based at the headquarters of Scottish Nuclear in East Kilbride? Will he give them the same guarantee of a minimum of 10 years' future employment as has been given to the staff of the new corporate headquarters?

Mr. Lang: I think that the hon. Gentleman is already well aware that, as a result of the Government's proposals for the future of the nuclear electricity generating industry, there will be a net increase in jobs in Scotland arising from the various head office functions coming to Scotland. The nuclear industry, like the rest of the electricity industry, has, of course, been rationalising itself to get costs down, to be competitive and to be efficient. The benefit of that to the Scottish economy is considerable. Scottish Hydro-Electric has been increasing jobs, with a net increase of 94 jobs, which is so important in the Perthshire economy. For the rest of the industry,


there has been a 120,000 net increase in employment over the past 10 years. That is the product of a more efficient economy, to which lower energy prices contribute.

Mrs. Lait: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Scottish Nuclear was set up, after electricity privatisation, in the constituency of the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram)? Is not it ungracious of him to complain when additional, high-tech engineering jobs will come into Scottish Nuclear after it, too, is privatised?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not just a matter of jobs coming into Scottish Nuclear—the nuclear electricity industry—in East Kilbride. It is the fact that a substantial number of new jobs in other industries are coming in. Unemployment in the constituency of the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) has fallen by 18 per cent. in the past year alone.

Mr. Wilson: Will the Secretary of State accept that the appointment of a two-day-a-week Tory, who is paid £100,000 and who continues to live in Surrey, is one job that we could all very well do without? Will he accept that, in my constituency, that is not accepted as any sort of substitute for the strong, successful public sector company that Scottish Nuclear is?

Mr. Lang: Under the Labour party, the Scottish nuclear industry would have disappeared with the loss of all jobs and of a major technology. We have given a future for that company and that industry which is full of promise and the prospect of growth and expansion—under a business leader of considerable distinction whose politics I know not but who, I am certain, will act as a very fine chairman of the industry.

Monklands Hospital Trust

Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to visit Monklands hospital trust; and if he will make a statement. [24224]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to visit the Monklands and Bellshill hospitals NHS trust. However, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State meets the chairmen of trusts regularly, when a range of issues are discussed.

Mr. Clarke: Does the Minister agree that the national health service staff in Monklands should continue to consider themselves as such, employed by a national health service trust and enjoying national terms and conditions within the national health service? Alternatively, are the Government planning to privatise such services in Monklands and elsewhere in Scotland, as they already plan to do at Stonehaven? Does the Minister agree that national health service Scotland funding should be on the basis of the British Government making resources available, based on national negotiations, and should not exploit people who offer themselves for employment in poor areas with great health problems? Finally, does the Minister accept that from Coatbridge to Kinross and from Perth to Peebles, people want the national health service that we once enjoyed, and that is being slowly destroyed by the present Government?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Some £4,000 million is being made available to the NHS in Scotland this year.

That is a record figure, constituting an increase of £143 million. The hon. Gentleman will also be encouraged to learn that the new chairman of Monklands NHS trust is Mr. David Millan, the well-known former chief executive of Cumbernauld development corporation.
I endorse what the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said in January:
We are not opposed to public/private partnerships—they bring in much needed money for the NHS".
The test must be the provision of a better standard of care for NHS patients. I can confirm that, with private sector involvement, as with all NHS projects, NHS providers will be asked to seek private finance to design, build and service any new facilities.
The hon. Gentleman will be glad to learn that Monklands and Bellshill NHS hospitals trust has made an offer of 3 per cent., subject to certain conditions.

Rural Roads

Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the detrunking of roads in rural areas of Scotland. [24225]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on the detrunking of roads in rural Scotland, particularly in response to the recent consultation exercise "Shaping the Trunk Road Network". The Government's response was published on 27 April.

Mrs. Michie: Has not the Minister rejected many of the representations made to him about roads in rural Scotland—in particular, those from Argyll and Bute and from Strathclyde—concerning the determination to detrunk the road between Lochgilphead and Ballachuilish? The road serves the requirements set out in the Minister's document for the trunk road network relating to industry, commerce, agriculture and tourism. Will he assure us that the new Argyll and Bute council will have the funds that are required to maintain the road and to build along the long-awaited and long-promised Creagan bridge?

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Lady has raised a number of points. The Creagan bridge project is still under consideration. Naturally, I expect the new council to have adequate funds to fulfil its responsibilities—bearing in mind the Government's position at the time in relation to the block grant.
The hon. Lady mentioned the detrunking of a certain road in her constituency, particularly between Campbeltown and Ballachuilish. The main road from Lochgilphead is trunked to the national network, as are the roads to Oban and Fort William. We believe that the road linking those three towns independently should be the responsibility of the local authority. Councils are always wanting further responsibility, and this is a very good chance for them to undertake it.

Mr. Gallie: I welcome the Government's response to the most recent consultation paper on the trunk road system. I am especially pleased that, for the first time, the A70 southern route to the A74/M74 is shown as a real possibility. What progress has been made by the "access to Ayrshire" group, which is considering the matter? Will my hon. Friend also comment on the progress currently being made on the upgrading of the A77 to motorway standard?

Sir Hector Monro: I assure my hon. Friend that we shall never forget the roads in Ayrshire while he is such an effective Member of Parliament for the Ayr constituency. Naturally, we are continuing the consultations on a link road to the M74. That will be an important decision when it comes, as will be the decision on further progress in upgrading the road from Glasgow to Ayrshire.

Scottish Homes Rents

Sir David Steel: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the increase in Scottish Homes rents in the borders; and for what reasons this increase is greater than the current notional rate of inflation indicated in the Government's guidelines. [24226]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In December 1994, the Scottish Homes board decided to increase its rents for 1995–96 throughout Scotland by an average of 4.2 per cent., but actual increases will vary in accordance with size, type and situation of house. Increases on this basis were applied to its stock in the borders as well as its stock in other parts of the country. It is for Scottish Homes to review rents, taking into consideration the resources required to manage and maintain its housing stock.

Sir David Steel: How can the Minister possibly justify rent increases in the public sector of almost 5 per cent. in my constituency when the Government are trying to hold down wage claims and offering nurses in my constituency an increase of 2.5 per cent.? Surely there must be some consistency in Government policy, or are we to await the arrival of the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) for a change of policy?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, housing benefit to the extent of £900 million is being made payable this year to those tenants who need assistance. The actual average increase in rents in Scotland is 28.78p per week, which is certainly well below the English figure, which is almost £10 more per week. The real reason is that, if the relevant housing association wishes to spend sufficient funds on management and maintenance, it will put up rents accordingly. It is for the Scottish Homes board to decide what the level of rents should be for Scottish Homes stock. No direction is given by Ministers.

Rail Sleeper Services

Mr. Tyler: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the implications for the Scottish economy of the decisions taken to date on the continuation of rail sleeper services from other parts of the United Kingdom. [24227]

Mr. Galbraith: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the directors of ScotRail to discuss rail closures. [24234]

Mr. Lang: Although responsibility for railway matters rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, I have been taking a close interest in these matters. My right hon. Friend and I agree that the Scottish economy will continue to derive substantial benefit from the continuation of rail sleeper services to and from Scotland and that such sleeper services remain important. I met the director of ScotRail on 28 March 1995. We discussed a wide range of matters relating to rail services in Scotland.

Mr. Tyler: If the Secretary of State has been taking such a close interest in the future of sleepers, will he consider the problem of the sleeper service between the west country and Scotland which, according to the timetable which we now have in our hands, is to disappear this weekend, yet which his colleagues in the Department of Transport have said carries 32,000 people a year, requires a minimal subsidy to maintain it and is of huge importance to the tourist industry at both ends of the line?
Can the Secretary of State explain why there has been minimum consultation with the tourist boards and why the economic effects of the closure have not been properly identified either by him or by his colleagues in the Department of Transport? Is it not a scandal that the service is to disappear this very weekend?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the subsidy on the Plymouth sleeper is about £44 per passenger per trip. That amounts to about £1.4 million per annum for a sleeper service that is roughly half occupied most of the time. However, he will be reassured to know that the London-Penzance sleeper is included in the public service requirement for the Great Western franchise.

Mr. Galbraith: The Secretary of State may have been taking a close interest in these matters, but he does not seem to be doing anything about them. Does he realise that not only the sleeper services but the overnight seating service to Scotland are being affected? Does he realise that there will be cuts in the west coast line, the highland line and the Kyle of Lochalsh line? Does he realise that privatisation means not only cuts but an increase in charges? When will he stand up for the railways and stop lying down in front of the privatisation express?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to put all those relevant points during the consultation process that is now in train. The hon. Gentleman talks about rising costs, but I have to point out that rail fares rose by 22 per cent. more than inflation in the past 10 years. As a result of the arrangements that are now being made for the future, they will fall in real terms in the years ahead.

Mr. Macdonald: Does the Secretary of State not realise that, unless he seizes the opportunity, which he now has, thanks to Highland regional council, to save and to develop the sleeper service to Fort William, he is really saying that he does not care if—

Madam Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman and the House are aware that the hearing on this matter has been set down for 1 June. The matter is therefore sub judice. I just caution hon. Members as to the questions that they may put. Having given that caution, I will hear the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Macdonald: Is the Secretary of State aware that the message that he must give to the people of Scotland is that, in transport terms, all parts of Scotland, including in particular regions such as the highlands and far north-west Scotland, must be connected on equal terms with the rest of the UK? If he does not send that message, he is saying that he does not care about the highlands' social and economic future.

Mr. Lang: I care very much about the social and economic future of the highlands, as of the rest of Scotland. That is why I warmly welcome the decrease in


unemployment, which is continuing after a fall for three consecutive years, and the growth in new employment and economic activity throughout the highlands and the rest of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman will, of course, have the opportunity to make the points that he has raised in the consultation process, but the announcement by the director of franchising underlines, for the first time, the continuing guarantee attached to the vast and overwhelming majority of rail services in Scotland. They have never had that before.

Mr. McFall: In Perth and Kinross, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have been banging on about the integrity of the Union. Does the Secretary of State accept that the logic of that statement means that there should be adequate rail access to all parts of the UK, including the highlands? Recent decisions threaten both day and overnight services, tourism and the economic prosperity and livelihood of the inhabitants of the region. Does he agree with the Scottish people that, if the Prime Minister is sincere in his desire to listen to people, he will do so and immediately abandon the folly of rail privatisation in Scotland?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman seems to be completely unaware that the decline in the quality of this country's rail services began when they were nationalised. Nationalised ownership and the starvation of resources undermined the quality of rail services. We are now creating not only a basic guarantee of almost all existing services, but the opportunity for new investment, new commercial management and an improved commitment to the delivery of a quality service. That should lead to a service that is not only cheaper, but better.

Hospital Wages and Service Provisions

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairs of NHS trusts in Scotland to discuss wages and service provision in Scottish hospitals. [24229]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My noble and learned Friend the Minister of State last met NHS trust chairmen on 20 January 1995 to discuss a range of issues.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister admit that his written answer to me yesterday shows that the Government's claim that nurses across Scotland would be offered 3 per cent. is entirely bogus? The truth is total chaos and disarray, with only eight of 47 trusts offering 3 per cent. without strings, and all the others seeking to reduce nurses' conditions of service by removing statutory holidays or making other changes? Will he now reintroduce collective bargaining on a national basis, and give all nurses the increase that they richly deserve—without strings and without delay?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The answer is no, but the hon. Gentleman will be glad to hear that the three trusts in Ayrshire have said that they intend to offer 3 per cent., dependent on local negotiations. The great advantage of local negotiations is that local pay can be an important step towards making services more responsive to local needs. Local pay does not necessarily mean less pay; it means fair pay, taking local circumstances properly into account.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Once the actual pay round is settled, what evidence does the Minister have that national health

service trusts will take account of service provision? The model used by the Scottish Office to get rid of acute beds is under severe strain, particularly in Dundee. We were originally given assurances that Kings Cross hospital would be used as a back-up if the economic model for acute beds did not work out. We are now told that Dundee Teaching Hospitals NHS trust has considered closing that hospital. What evidence does the Minister have that NHS trusts have taken account of the fact that the economic model used by the Scottish Office to get rid of acute beds may not work?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The principle is clear: no patient should be discharged from hospital unless there is a bed provided within the local community. Ministers are not entitled to play any part in clinical decisions which are necessarily matters for the health service. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to see that Dundee Healthcare trust made an offer of 3 per cent. with conditions. The £143 million extra for the health service this year will provide considerable assistance towards settling these matters satisfactorily.

Mr. George Robertson: When the Minister last met the chairmen of the health trusts, did he express any shame about the fact that his Department is now pushing the NHS towards privatisation in Scotland? Is not the evidence for that seen in what is happening in Stonehaven today, where Grampian health board is being obliged by the Scottish Office to offer any or all hospital services or even the entire new hospital to the private profit-making sector? When the Prime Minister told the Tory party conference in 1991 that there would be
no … privatisation of health care, neither piecemeal, nor in part, nor as a whole",
people listened to him. Now, they will concentrate on what is happening in Stonehaven. Has not the contrast between those words and the reality of privatisation in the health service led the Conservative party in Scotland into electoral freefall?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If the hon. Gentleman feels like that, why did he say in January
We are not opposed to public/private partnerships"?
That is precisely what we are talking about, together with improved services. The great advantage of introducing private sector finance is to make public sector funds go much further while providing improved services.
On Stonehaven, Grampian health board is consulting on the way forward. It intends to take the lead and to tender for the service. It is likely to involve local trusts and general practitioners, but there is the possibility of opening up the tender to private providers. That has not been ruled out. The decision as to who wins will depend upon the level of services and the provision of a better service for patients.

Skillseekers Training Programme

Mr. Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the budget estimate for the skillseekers training programme for 1995–96; and how many jobs with training the programme is expected to provide. [24231]

Mr. Kynoch: The 1995–96 budget for youth training in Scotland, which includes the skillseekers training programme, is over £98 million. It is estimated that, for


1995–96, the percentage of young people training under skillseekers who will have employed status will be around 50 per cent.

Mr. Connarty: That is a very vague answer from the Minister. I was given better figures by Scottish Enterprise, which estimates that £70 million will go into the skillseekers programme, and it is looking for 30,000 jobs with training. Does the Minister share with me the concern of everyone to whom I have spoken in the past month that the vouchers-for-training scheme is just the beginning of Tory party dogma—the thin end of the wedge—of vouchers for nurseries and vouchers for education? Young people will be out in the market grasping their vouchers and those who will be taking them on will be thinking, "How can I get this person through this job with the least money coming from the employer?" Every person to whom I have spoken has said that there is no increase in money for monitoring. How do the Government expect young people to obtain decent training without anybody supporting them? Why is there no more money for monitoring to ensure that the skillseekers programme is not just another youth rip-off scheme?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that between Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the total figure estimated for 1995–96, excluding modern apprenticeships, is 35,000. The hon. Gentleman is a little out of date with his figures.
I understand that, on Friday, the hon. Gentleman is due to visit his local enterprise company, Forth Valley Enterprise, which started the skillseekers programme in April. If the hon. Gentleman were to consult more widely, he would find that it has been widely accepted by employers around the country. Local enterprise companies have considerable flexibility in the way in which they can operate within specified guidelines.
Just the other day, I introduced a new pilot scheme in Fife. It is called fast track and trainees will be able to undertake full-time education as well. On monitoring, payment will be made only after very stringent checks against the stringent standards that will have been set by the enterprise companies.

Mr. Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that skillseekers, which started in Grampian in his area, has been a marked success throughout Scotland? Is it not significant that this, together with every other training initiative introduced by the Government, has been automatically opposed by the Labour party?

Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The Opposition are full of words, but little action. My hon. Friend referred to skillseekers being piloted in Grampian. He would be interested to learn that in Grampian the number of young people with employed status has risen from 422 at the end of December 1991, under the youth training scheme, to 3,726 at the end of March 1995 under skillseekers. That speaks louder than words.

Farm Land

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many acres of Scotland are currently farmed; how many farm acres are currently set aside; at what cost; and if he will make a statement. [24233]

Sir Hector Monro: In 1994, there were just over 6 million hectares of agricultural land in Scotland. About 93,000 hectares were in set-aside. Payments amounted to £25.7 million.

Mr. Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that farmers and farm workers in Perthshire are enjoying increasing prosperity? Would that not be put at risk by a tax-raising Scottish Assembly?

Sir Hector Monro: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to suggest that Scottish farm incomes have risen substantially. Last year, they increased by no less than 25 per cent. to £454 million, the highest figure for 17 years. As he said, Perth and Kinross is the sort of area that benefits substantially from the money going into both less-favoured areas and non-LFA areas. The future looks good, provided people make the right decision tomorrow.

Nuclear Waste

Mr. Khabra: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment has been made of the safe disposal of nuclear waste generated in Scotland; its current and future costs; and if he will make a statement. [24235]

Sir Hector Monro: A White Paper which sets out the conclusions to the Government's review of radioactive waste management policy and covers wastes arising in Scotland is to be published in the summer.

Mr. Khabra: The Minister failed to identify radioactive waste disposal locations in his reply. Is it not utterly irresponsible of the Government to sell the nuclear industry to finance tax bribes, while neglecting the safety of the people of Scotland? Will he give an assurance that enough is being done for the people of Scotland?

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question shows that he has been misinformed. His main question related to nuclear waste generated in Scotland, and there is no problem with that. Low-level waste from Hunterston, Torness and Chapelcross is taken to Drigg. High-level waste is retained on site for 50 years. There is no problem because, whoever is the owner or manager of Scottish Nuclear's output from its generating stations, the whole process is carried out extremely safely.

Unemployment, Perth and Kinross

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of unemployed in Perth and Kinross; and what the figure was in December 1992. [24236]

Mr. Kynoch: Unadjusted claimant unemployment in the parliamentary constituency of Perth and Kinross stood at 2,647 in April 1995. In December 1992, the figure was 2,791.

Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most important employer in Perth is General Accident? Has that company not made it clear that a tax regime resulting from a tax-raising Scottish Assembly or the higher taxes of an independent Scotland would cause it to reconsider its employment policy in Perth?

Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend mentioned just one of the major employers in Perth and Kinross. He was right


to imply that the people of Perth and Kinross have to decide clearly what they believe to be best for the future, not only for Perth and Kinross but for Scotland. There is no doubt that the proposals for a tax-raising Parliament and for an independent Scotland would severely jeopardise prospects not just for indigenous industry but for inward investment in both Scotland generally and Perth and Kinross in particular.

Mrs. Fyfe: There is no one more accident prone in Perth and Kinross than the Tory candidate. Has the Minister taken the trouble to read the House of Commons research paper that tells him that in April 1990 there were 2,143 claimants in Perth and Kinross and by April 1994 the number had risen to 2,647? A whole year later there is no change for the better. Does he realise that that is an increase of 24 per cent. and that today 11 people chase every job advertised in Perth town centre? Is that not why the Tories are in meltdown in Perth and Kinross?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Lady is in her usual negative mode. I had rather hoped that she might talk about some significant good news. For example, Monax Glass, the manufacturer of engineering and scientific glassware in Perth, announced an investment of £250,000 last month, creating 40 jobs in Perth. Indeed, Perth Fresh Meats Ltd., which I visited last week and which is part of the Beck Food group, announced that it was to create more than 110 new jobs in Perth. The hon. Lady is in her usual negative mode. If she were to talk Scotland and Perth and Kinross up, she might do a little better for Scotland.

Mr. Gallie: Does my hon. Friend agree that training for jobseekers is just as important in Perth and Kinross as it is in other parts of Scotland? Will my hon. Friend consider just what the minimum wage on offer from the Opposition would do to the Government's training programmes?

Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The policies on the minimum wage and other employment characteristics, which are supported by all Opposition parties, would be severely detrimental to Scottish business and the Scottish economy as a whole.

Transport Network

Mr. Eric Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss Scotland's transport network. [24237]

Mr. Lang: I meet the Scottish TUC from time to time to discuss a variety of issues relating to the Scottish economy, including transport matters.

Mr. Clarke: Is the Secretary of State aware that people in Scotland fear that the Government are opting out of the transport network in privatising British Rail? Will the subsidies and the guarantees of fares being kept down in the south of England be the same for the whole of Scotland?

Mr. Lang: The fares guarantee will apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. As to the Government opting out, on the contrary, we are privatising the rail network because we believe that there is need for improvement which can be provided only by the private sector. The past

few years have not demonstrated that the public sector has the capacity to deliver the quality of rail service that this country needs.

Mr. McLoughlin: When my right hon. Friend next meets the TUC, will he point out the great advantages that are being brought about by air liberalisation and allowing competition to take place between British Midland and British Airways, to the benefit of all passengers in Scotland who use those routes?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the encouraging features of the rising prosperity in this country is the increasing use of various air routes around the United Kingdom. That is reflected in massive new investment at Glasgow and Edinburgh airports of £30 million and £100 million respectively.

Mr. Wallace: In discharging responsibilities with regard to the Scottish transport network, the Secretary of State will know that under section 5 of the Railways Act 1993 the Secretary of State for Transport can give directions to the franchising director, Mr. Salmon, including a direction that Mr. Salmon must submit to the Department of Transport the criteria that he will apply when he puts loss-making services into the passenger service obligation. Has the Secretary of State been involved in discussing those criteria? If so, when will that happen and what are the criteria?

Mr. Lang: Surely the hon. Gentleman knows by now that internal discussions between Ministers are not made public. He will wish to address his point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. McAvoy: The Secretary of State will be aware that the rail services provided in the Strathclyde regional council area, part-funded by that council, are a key part of Scotland's transport network. But is he aware that the Argyll line services to Cambuslang, Rutherglen and Halfway have been effectively closed over the past few months because of flooding of the line? Despite the efforts of Strathclyde region to get together with ScotRail to try to come up with alternatives to that closed service, ScotRail does not seem to be moving. If the Secretary of State is really concerned about Scotland's rail network, will he ensure that ScotRail co-operates with Strathclyde regional council to re-establish that rail service?

Mr. Lang: As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, those are matters for Strathclyde passenger transport executive to negotiate with ScotRail. If he wants to send me any further details, however, I shall see whether there is any way in which I can help him.

Rev. Martin Smyth: In discussions with the Scottish TUC and others, has the Secretary of State examined the impact on the transport network in Scotland of upgrading the Stranraer, Larne and Belfast facilities? Will he undertake to have a discussion with the Secretary of State for Transport? He cannot tell us publicly what he has discussed, but could he not use his influence to upgrade facilities at Stranraer?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will understand why I share his close interest in such matters. I am glad to be able to tell him that a major new investment at Stranraer


was announced only this week. It comes on top of the various commitments, on both road and rail, to upgrade the transport network in that important part of Scotland.

Mr. George Robertson: Would the Secretary of State give a warm welcome to the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who is lurking suspiciously at the end of the Government Front Bench? While he is doing so, could he bring to mind the prophetic words of his late colleague, Mr. Robert Adley, who described railway privatisation as the poll tax on wheels? Does he not realise that privatising the railways in Scotland will be as wasteful, costly and electorally devastating as the poll tax was to turn out to be? Is it not time that the Secretary of State put Scotland before Tory ideology and, perhaps, put the people of Scotland and their interests before his career plans in the Cabinet?

Mr. Lang: We are sweeping away the remnants of the socialist ideology and dogma that led to so many public utilities being brought into the public sector, thereby denying them the resources and investment that they needed to stay efficient and modern. Now we are giving them the opportunity to break free from that constraint, just as we have done with telephones, the airlines, gas and electricity and so many other industries. Where they relied before on Government subsidies of £50 million a week, they are now profitable, successful, more efficient and generating revenue to the Exchequer of around £50 million a week, I have no doubt that railway privatisation will lead to massive improvements for the people of this country.

Elderly Care Beds

Mr. Chisholm: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many NHS continuing care beds for the elderly there were in 1985; how many there are now; and how many he expects there to be in 10 years' time. [24238]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In 1985, there were 12,064 geriatric and psycho-geriatric beds in Scotland. There are now 12,950 beds in those categories. There has, however, been a reclassification of beds over that period. There are no centrally imposed targets for long-stay bed provision in the NHS.

Mr. Chisholm: Does the Under-Secretary realise that there is fear and dismay in Lothian because the number of long-stay beds for the elderly is to be more than halved by the end of the century, with the prospect of eight beds in 10 disappearing by 2005? Does he accept that the main result will be not more care in the community but more elderly people paying for nursing home care? Having paid once through tax and national insurance contributions, why should many elderly people have to pay yet again, some having to sell their homes to do so?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I welcome the fact that Lothian health board and the relevant NHS trusts are looking carefully within Lothian at all elderly, long-stay admissions to hospitals and, where appropriate, arranging for suitable placements in the community. Clearly, however, elderly people who need long-stay NHS care will receive it. Guidance has been issued on the subject and, if an element of patients' needs cannot be readily met, quite simply they should not and will not be discharged. We are to consult shortly on Scottish provisions on the NHS role in continuing care and on

provision for appeals against a clinician's assessment for continuing NHS in-patient care, because, on occasions, some of the disputes relate to decisions made by clinicians. I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's points, as will my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State.

Mr. Kirkwood: In the consultation that the hon. Gentleman has just announced, will he take into account the concern that is felt by many people who occupy NHS continuing care beds, who face the prospect of being transferred into the social work care in the community package and who, in the course of so doing, have not only their needs assessed but their means tested? Will he give a categorical assurance that Scottish health boards will have enough finance to ensure that transitional protection elements are in place, so that there are no costs to existing patients in continuing care in the NHS? During the consultations, will he undertake a review to ensure that benefit thresholds are relaxed so that people's inheritances do not in future have to pay for their continuing care?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Some of the matters that the hon. Gentleman raises should be addressed to the Department of Social Security, but we regard it as extremely important that sufficient resources are made available. There has been enhanced mainstream funding of £158 million this year from the transfer of former DSS funds. Some £14 million has been transferred under the mental illness specific grant scheme, and £50 million has been transferred from the health boards to the local authorities. We anticipate that the transfer could be about some £200 million early in the next decade. We cannot state the exact sum at this stage because much of what happens will depend on the judgment of clinicians.

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend will be aware that in my constituency Greater Glasgow health board has increased the number of continuing care beds compared with its original plans. Does that not show that health boards are responding in real terms to the consultation and constructive points made by communities?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend is right. Greater Glasgow health board received a general allocation for revenue expenditure this year of £585.66 million which, together with efficiency savings, gives an increase of 3.76 per cent. over the year before. I am delighted that such progress has been made in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. McAllion: Will the Minister try to understand that the quality of those NHS continuing care beds that do survive depends entirely on the people who staff those beds—the doctors, nurses, radiologists, ancillary workers and other NHS workers? Will he try to understand above all that those dedicated people will not be bought and sold like cattle in a marketplace? We need a guarantee from the Minister that no NHS job will be put up for sale to the private sector in open competition in Stonehaven or anywhere else in Scotland. It is simple: either he rules out or he rules in privatising the people who are the NHS in Scotland. Which is it to be?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The private finance initiative is certainly not about privatising the health service. It involves sharing the risk with the private sector, giving incentives for better performance and providing services as well as capital to support the NHS. The whole


purpose of the scheme is to make public sector funds go much further by bringing in private sector funds to make it certain that high standards will be implemented.

Mr. McAHion: What about the people?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is the best service for the people who are being served—the patients. The interests of those at the sharp end of the system must be constantly kept in mind.

Ambulance Service

Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet the chief executive of the Scottish ambulance service NHS trust to discuss the adequacy of the service in Renfrewshire. [24239]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend has no present plans to meet the chief executive of the Scottish ambulance service NHS trust to discuss the adequacy of the service in Renfrewshire. The provision of emergency ambulance services is the subject of agreements between the Scottish ambulance service NHS trust and health boards. The performance of the Scottish ambulance service against agreed targets is monitored by the health boards as well as by the Scottish Office Home and Health Department.

Dr. Godman: Despite the unhelpful and dimwitted remarks made by the chief executive in a letter to a colleague, I seek neither to rubbish the ambulance service nor to cause more distress to the family of a constituent who was severely injured in a recent traffic accident and had to wait 30 minutes for an ambulance. I have every respect for ambulance crews, and I do not agree that there is a problem with the local management and control of the service. Will the Minister initiate an investigation into the management and control of the service in Renfrewshire?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that that has been done. The Minister of State has asked the chief executive to review the level of cover in that area and to identify any measures that can be taken to improve the response times, particularly in circumstances of exceptional demand.
The targets for Paisley and Greenock are for an ambulance to arrive within eight minutes for 50 per cent. of emergency calls and within 18 minutes for 95 per cent. of calls. In 1994–95, the Greenock station consistently met those targets, but a review is being undertaken, as the hon. Gentleman has requested.

Sunday Trading (Garden Centres)

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to alter the hours of trading of garden centres on Sunday; and if he will make a statement. [24240]

Mr. Kynoch: I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that there are no general statutory restrictions on Sunday trading in Scotland. The questions whether and when to trade on a Sunday therefore remain matters for individual and corporate traders to decide. We have no intention of regulating hours of trading on a Sunday for garden centres or any other business in Scotland.

Mr. Fabricant: How wise that answer was. May I ask my hon. Friend to give an unequivocal assurance that he has no intention of closing garden centres on Easter Sunday? Is he aware of how disastrous that has been in mid-Staffordshire not only for garden centers—

Madam Speaker: Order. The question should relate to Scotland, not Staffordshire.

Mr. Fabricant: Does not Scotland lead the way, and should not England and Wales follow? Last Easter Sunday, 15 million people in England and Wales who wanted to buy plants and other products were turned away from garden centres.

Mr. Kynoch: I thank my hon. Friend for his opening flattery. Matters relating to south of the border are for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Tourism

Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the method available to hon. Members to obtain details of tourism-related capital projects in their constituencies which receive support from public funds. [24241]

Mr. Kynoch: Any hon. Member who wishes to obtain details of tourism-related capital projects in his or her constituency, which have received support from public funds, should contact the appropriate local enterprise company.

Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that very unhelpful reply. Is he aware that one of the most important things that this House does is to vote Supply, and that the cornerstone of our unwritten constitution is a Member's right to ask questions and have them answered? It may therefore come as a surprise to him to know that I have been unable to get the information required. If it requires legislation, will he consider it so that hon. Members can get answers, as they are entitled to expect?

Mr. Kynoch: I think that I know what my hon. Friend is talking about. I accept that local enterprise companies in the Scottish Enterprise area have probably set a greater premium on commercial confidentiality than the Scottish tourist board before them or local enterprise companies in the highlands and islands. He might be interested to know that, while the Scottish Affairs Select Committee has made some recommendations in its report, which Ministers are considering, local enterprise companies in the Scottish Enterprise area are now advising applicants that certain details of financial assistance to individual projects may be made public in the future. I hope that that is a helpful answer to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the Minister undertake to explain the methodology that he and his colleagues, particularly the Secretary of State, have so misleadingly employed with respect to the passenger subsidy for Scottish rail services? Many people believe that the figures that have been produced for sleepers, for example, are entirely unreliable and are designed to deceive the Scottish public about the cost of those vital services.

Mr. Kynoch: That is an ingenious way of getting the question in. The hon. Gentleman can use the consultation period on the passenger service requirement to put his points forward.

Homelessness

Mr. Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the level of homelessness in (a) Scotland and (b) Tayside; and if he will make a statement. [24243]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In 1992–93, the latest year for which complete figures for Tayside are available, 29,000 households in Scotland and 1,643 households in Tayside were found to be homeless or at risk of homelessness.

Mr. Welsh: Does the Minister accept that current levels of homelessness are unacceptable in any civilised society? Will he admit that housing associations alone cannot cope, and will he explain why he is starving local authorities of the resources required to solve that problem?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am not. This year, some £900 million will be invested in housing. It is one of the top priorities for all district authorities in Scotland, which have strategic responsibility. We have given a considerable amount of grant to voluntary organisations, concentrating on prevention rather than cure, and have allocated £29 million for special schemes to assist with homelessness. In addition, we recently issued a consultation paper on a subject in which the hon. Gentleman is interested—anti-social tenants. He is welcome to make observations during the consultation period.

Dr. Reid: Is it not true that, under the present Government, both public and private sector housing starts have been crucified? When will the Minister stop the policy of taking away with one hand what he allows with the other to local authorities for public expenditure on housing? Is it not an indictment of the Government's economic policy and their crucifying of the building industry and of their lack of moral imperatives in the way in which they treat the homeless? If he had attended to both economic policy and moral imperatives, would not the Minister and his party stand a chance—just a chance—of avoiding the humiliation that confronts them at the Perth and Kinross by-election?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman forgets that the most recent Labour Government cut capital expenditure on housing to the bone. As I mentioned, about £900 million will be provided this year in housing investment. We anticipate that, some time during the year, the 300,000th house will be built since 1979, which is a considerable achievement, much of it by the private sector but some by the public sector.

Hospital Beds

Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to improve hospital bed provision in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [24244]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is for each health board in Scotland to ensure that the needs of the population in its area are matched by appropriate health and health care services. That includes discussing with the

NHS trusts and other providers of health services from which it purchases care, the number of hospital beds that should be available.

Mr. Marshall: Does the Minister accept the fact that the east end of Glasgow has some of the worst health statistics in Scotland and in the United Kingdom? Will he therefore deplore the proposals to close Belvidere hospital in Parkhead, which cares for elderly people in my constituency—or is he happy for it to be sold off or privatised à la Stonehaven? Just when will he start putting patient care before profit?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Any proposal for closure arising from the acute and maternity reviews will require the consent of the Secretary of State. Before the Secretary of State were to give approval for any such proposal, he would have to be satisfied that an equally good, if not better, system of care was put in place. However, I will certainly ensure that the Minister of State is made aware of the hon. Gentleman's opinions.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Minister recall that it is but a few years since he was trumpeting the virtues of the national health service trust system? Is he aware that he has now contradicted himself by choosing private tendering for the replacement of Stonehaven hospital? Is he aware that, last night, there was a well-attended meeting in Stonehaven, organised by the Stonehaven and district community council, which voted by an overwhelming margin—by more than 2:1—against privatisation? Will he take heed of that, and abandon that dangerous heresy?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that there will be consultation. I wish to make it quite clear that, since trusts have been established, waiting times have shortened, more people are receiving treatment and there has been increased investment in improving hospitals. However, as I explained earlier, the purpose of the private finance initiative is to ensure that public sector funds go very much further, with higher standards for the patients.

Highlands and Islands

Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the economic prospects for the highlands and islands. [24245]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The success of the Government's economic policies means that the prospects for continuing growth towards long-term economic prosperity in the highlands look very encouraging.

Mr. Macdonald: Is the Minister aware that investment in education is crucial to the economic future of the highlands? Is he aware that a recent report into a school in my constituency, Bayble school, by Her Majesty's inspectorate said that it was dangerous, smelly and suffering from chronic disrepair? Is that not the case throughout the highlands, and is that not a telling indictment of 15 years of chronic underinvestment and neglect by Tory Governments?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No. Approaching £70 million is made available this year for capital investment in schools and school buildings. When we have the annual spending round this autumn, we shall take a hard look at the issue—not just in the hon. Gentleman's constituency,


of which I am aware, but in many other parts of Scotland. We shall consider with great care the condition of school buildings throughout the length and breadth of Scotland.

Scottish Economy

Dr. Reid: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of Scottish Enterprise to discuss the Scottish economy; and if he will make a statement. [24246]

Mr. Kynoch: My right hon. Friend last met the chairman of Scottish Enterprise to discuss economic issues on 1 March 1995.

Dr. Reid: Is it not crucial for the Scottish economy to maintain and develop research and development and skilled jobs at the forefront of technology? In the light of that, what does the Minister have to say to those

Rolls-Royce workers who are today in London to protest against not only the loss of 600 skilled jobs but the transfer of technology out of Scotland and possibly out of Britain? Is it not a damning indictment of the Government's inactivity and uninterest that they have stood idly by while those jobs and that potential have disappeared from Scotland?

Mr. Kynoch: Obviously, no one likes to see jobs go. Unfortunately, Rolls-Royce has had to face the conditions that are prevalent in the aerospace industry. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware of the much larger job losses that are suffered elsewhere within that industry. The Government believe in ensuring that the right economic conditions are in place to guarantee continuing drops in unemployment, continuing increases in inward investment and the best possible employment prospects for the people of Scotland in the future.

Lord Wilson (Tributes)

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
This morning we heard the sad news of the death of Lord Wilson. As the House well knows, Lord Wilson had been ill for a very long time and had endured that illness with courage and with great good humour. I know that the whole House would wish to join me in sending our sincerest condolences to Mary Wilson, who nursed and cared for him with such devotion for so long, and also to his sons, Robin and Giles.
I did not know Harold Wilson personally when he was at the height of his powers, but I knew him from afar as a formidable political opponent. I believe that history will remember him for the sharpness and shrewdness of his mind; for his two periods of service as Prime Minister in difficult circumstances; and for his energy and enthusiasm, as well as for his many achievements. And also, perhaps here of all places, he will be remembered for his wit and his humour—often shown to such devastating effect on the Floor of the House. But that is the public man. His friends who knew him well speak also of the private man—of his great personal kindnesses and generosity. He expected loyalty from those around him and he offered it in full measure in return.
Harold Wilson was a Yorkshireman whose roots mattered to him. His background motivated his politics. His family's experience during the depression, when his father was unemployed, shaped his politics, his thinking and his future policies. In becoming Prime Minister, he broke through many of the traditional class barriers of the day.
I do not believe that it is too generous to describe Harold Wilson as one of the most brilliant men of his generation. He gained an outstanding first-class degree at Oxford. He was an exceptionally young and able don at New college and then a fellow at University college. He worked for William Beveridge on his great study of unemployment. His ability as a statistician was legendary and those who knew him well will recall his remarkable memory, which was displayed with such pleasure so often and to such good effect.
At the outbreak of war, Harold Wilson's capacity for incisive thought and rigorous analysis took him to the economic section of the Cabinet Office and then to the Ministry of Fuel and Power. Over the years, by his remarkable work in those positions, he caught the attention of leading Labour party figures such as Clem Attlee. Then, in 1945, at the relatively young age of 28, he was elected for the first time to the House as the Member for Ormskirk. He was quickly given a ministerial post and a mere two years later he became President of the Board of Trade, the youngest Cabinet Minister in the House since 1806.
As a Minister, Harold Wilson quickly established a strong reputation. He was responsible for the removal of the rationing controls on clothes and textiles that had remained from the war and also for the relaxation of dozens of other regulations. He was active, far beyond his time, in opening up important trade links with Russia.
In 1950, following boundary changes, Harold Wilson was elected to the seat of Huyton, which he was to represent with great distinction for another 33 years. In

1951 he resigned from the Front Bench over the imposition of health charges before Labour's election defeat, which, for him, led to 13 long years in opposition. It was in that time that he developed from the brilliant academic to become the sparkling political figure of later years.
The tragic, untimely death of Hugh Gaitskell brought Harold Wilson to the leadership of his party earlier than he might have expected. His election was widely welcomed. He was recognised as a man of both intellectual and political skills. In choosing his first shadow Cabinet, he displayed his willingness to select people of ability, whether or not they agreed with his point of view. That ability to conciliate—often a scorned attribute, but a necessary one—was displayed continually throughout his leadership of the Labour party. He narrowly won election as Prime Minister in 1964 and secured a large majority in 1966. In government he placed a strong emphasis on technology and innovation, to be carried through with a new emphasis on state planning. His social policies embodied the liberal spirit of the time.
During six years of government, Harold Wilson faced many difficult problems—the ever-present currency crisis; Northern Ireland; the Rhodesia crisis; controversy over whether British troops should become involved in the war in Vietnam; the uncertainty over whether Britain would or would not join the then European Community; and industrial unrest, particularly in the docks. Those problems faced him continually as Prime Minister. I believe that history will judge that Harold Wilson kept a clear and a cool head in the face of those difficulties. For my generation at least, as observers through television and from a distance, his ever-present pipe became a symbol of tranquillity in times of some turmoil.
Harold Wilson had much to his credit in those days. He was responsible for the rapid expansion of higher education, including the development of the polytechnics. He was personally involved in, and rightly proud of, setting up the Open university. He was aware of the dangers of excessive concentration of trade union power and he was brave enough to tackle it, alas without the complete support of many of his colleagues at the time. Of course, he was the only British Prime Minister to preside over England's winning the World cup. He was a remarkable man. He was not ready to give up as Labour leader following defeat in 1970. He was right, and he proved it with two further election victories in 1974. With them, he became the only Prime Minister this century to have emerged victorious from four general elections.
When Harold Wilson stood down as Prime Minister in 1976, many were surprised, even shocked. Why had he done it? What did he mean by it? The fuss was considerable, and how much he must have enjoyed it at the time. Even those who had tried for so long to unseat him could not accept that he had stood down of his own accord; but he had. He had served longer than any Prime Minister before him this century and it was perfectly natural that he would wish to enjoy his retirement.
What was Harold Wilson really like? I have formed my judgment. He was a complex man, certainly, a clever man, a sensitive man, a man who could be bruised and hurt and who never wore the armadillo skin of the fictional politician. He was a man of many achievements and, perhaps above all, a very human man who served his country well and honourably and who has earned, by that, a secure place in its history. In the ledger of life, his credit


balance is very high. It is a privilege for me, as one, nominally, of his political opponents, to pay him this tribute and I do so unreservedly.

Mr. Tony Blair: I thank the Prime Minister for that generous tribute. It is my privilege to join in our tribute to Harold Wilson and in sending our sympathy to Mary and to Harold and Mary's two sons and their families.
I was barely 11 years old when Harold Wilson became Prime Minister. It was a new era, in which the British people were looking forward in a spirit of hope and optimism. Harold Wilson, in a sense, was to politics what the Beatles were to popular culture. He simply dominated the nation's political landscape, and he personified the new era, not stuffy or hidebound but classless, forward-looking, modern. Even his enemies and detractors, and there were a few, could not deny his brilliance, his brain and the intelligence born of natural wit, not social background. But neither were his friends slow to point to his immense generosity, his warmth, his profound human sympathy.
Harold Wilson was born into a very typical non-conformist, lower middle-class northern family. His parents were active in the local church, and Harold Wilson himself was very active in the local scouts. Indeed, some have said that he was, and in some ways remained, the Huddersfield boy scout—respectable, bright, determined. His academic record, as the Prime Minister said, was outstanding—his first-class honours degree, his photographic memory, his period as a research assistant to Sir William Beveridge. When he was elected to Parliament, and then just over two years into being a Member of Parliament became a Cabinet Minister, his was a reputation that was growing day by day.
Harold Wilson resigned in 1951 over what he regarded as excessive defence spending, and I think that it is fair to say that, for the next 13 years, his career was sometimes up and down. He was a Bevanite, regarded with some considerable alarm from time to time by the then party establishment. But his gifts were so undeniable that, whatever the views of whatever party establishment, he was bound to rise to the top. He was known, rightly, as one of the great parliamentary performers, as a stump orator of genius, devastating in repartee. But contrary to legend, that was not natural, but the result of painstaking work and care.
By all accounts, the Cabinet Minister of the Attlee Government was rather a dull speaker, though massively well informed, but Harold Wilson set out to become the best and he did. By 1956, when he became shadow Chancellor, his speeches were acclaimed as parliamentary masterpieces, and he simply got better and better as time went on. In particular, he raised dealing with hecklers, or interruptions at public meetings, to something of an art form. When a young boy hit him in the eye with a stink bomb at an open-air meeting and was marched off by the police, Harold, whose eye was none the less smarting, looked up and said, "Don't lock him up. With an arm like that he should be bowling for England."
At the height of the 1964 election campaign, when a lady got up to carry out a crying child, Harold Wilson turned to her and said, "Let him stay, madam. This is all about his future." He did not always get the best of his

tormentors, and one of the good things about him were the stories that he would tell against himself. The best, I believe, was when he was at a vast public meeting. Speaking about the Navy, "I will always defend the Navy," he said, "and why do I say that?" "Because you're in Chatham," shouted a voice from the crowd. Knowing that he was beaten, he joined in the laughter and moved on.
When Hugh Gaitskell died in 1963, Harold became the leader of the Labour party. He stayed leader for 13 years, won four out of five elections and retired in 1976 at a time and in a manner of his own choosing. It is hardly surprising that succeeding Labour leaders look upon him with envy and admiration. Indeed, he is, I believe, the only politician to have won four general elections. My party has been in power this century for something over 20 years and 11 of them were delivered by Harold Wilson.
In 1964, Harold Wilson symbolised the new mood of change. There had been 13 years of unbroken Conservative rule, the memories of war were becoming more distant, technology and science were revolutionising people's lives, and a cultural transformation in popular arts was waiting to happen. It was an age for meritocracy, for sweeping away the old and ringing in the new, and Harold Wilson captured it.
Harold Wilson's speech at the 1963 Labour conference about the new Britain to be forged in the white heat of the technological revolution, where there would be no room, as he said, for restrictive practices or outdated methods on either side of industry, encapsulated the spirit of the time. All the forces of change—political, industrial, cultural—propelled him into office, but his was the victory because in him those forces were personified.
It was a time of hope and opportunity, and although the judgment has occasionally been harsh, it was a time of achievement, too. When Harold Wilson lost office in 1970, Britain had enjoyed low unemployment and low inflation and its finances were in sound and balanced order. No Government have achieved that since. By the end of six years, three times as many people were going into higher education. He created and drove through the Open university, which has given to tens of thousands of people the chance of a university degree. He introduced the first legislation against discrimination in respect of women and racial minorities.
It is no doubt fashionable now to knock the '60s and, like any age, it had its share of faults, but for many, let us not forget, it was a time when opportunity began, horizons opened and ambition and aspiration were spread to a multitude of people previously denied them.
The defeat of 1970 was a bitter blow, but Harold Wilson came back. He won two elections in 1974. This time, the majority was small, and I think that it is right to say that the impending fracture between right and left within our party grew. He had to deal with the problems that eventually boiled over in the 1980s and whose resolution has been the single most outstanding change since Wilson's day.
Although known, sometimes dismissively, as, above all, a party manager of skill, it was, it is fair to say, Harold Wilson who advised his party to accept "In Place of Strife" in 1969 and, again, had his advice been accepted, who knows what the future course of history could have been.
Even with his difficulties, Harold Wilson achieved much in that Government. He improved pensions. He passed the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. He started to plan child benefit. He set up the National Consumer Council.
No tribute to Harold Wilson would be complete without a word about the foreign policy. Again, the challenges were immense. He had to withdraw defence obligations east of Suez, a difficult but necessary task. He negotiated Britain's remaining in the European Community. He had the painful task of trying to end UDI in Rhodesia. He kept Britain out of the Vietnam war. He was an unrelenting opponent of apartheid and the South African regime. He founded War on Want. He established the Overseas Development Ministry. It is an impressive record. When we look back over those years, there is much of which to be proud.
The end of Harold Wilson's life was often spent in illness and I would like to pay special tribute to Mary, his wife, who cared for him in the last years. She was a source of love and comfort beyond compare.
I believe that in time the perception of Harold Wilson and his years in government will change and, indeed, already is changing. To many, he is defined as a clever politician—and he was. Yet it would be most unfair to let that eclipse his real character and his deep commitment. He had, in the end, a very simple belief in the virtues of social justice and equality and, by and large, throughout his time in politics, he applied them. He once said:
The Labour party is a moral crusade, or it is nothing.
That should be his real epitaph and long may it remain so.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I wish to associate myself and all in my party with the very full and, if I may say so, moving tributes made by the Prime Minister and the leader of the Labour party.
I am sure that most politicians, certainly most party leaders, would recognise that politics can, from time to time, be pretty tough going. To have led one's party for a handful of years, against the pressure of what Macmillan called events, the attack of the press and the business to which one always has to attend of party management, is a success in itself; but to have led one's party—a great party in the state—for 13 years is a remarkable achievement in its own right and an extraordinary testimony to human endurance. By the same token, to have won one election is a triumph; to have won four, it seems to me, is a remarkable achievement.
Harold Wilson, as the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition said, often regarded holding his party together as one of his main achievements. Leading a divided party might at times look messy and manipulative to contemporaries in one's political time and in the press of the moment, but although it is easy to pillory pragmatism as lack of principle, it is nevertheless not the issue by which a politician and a party leader will be judged. History highlights results, and four election victories out of five campaigns is a historic achievement by any standards.
Lord Wilson was Prime Minister through times, as the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition said, of great social change in this country. There were

disappointments—of course there were; that is the way of politics—but there were also great achievements. In particular, the caring and progressive outlook of the personality of Harold Wilson shines through that wide range of the social achievements of his Governments—from equal opportunities legislation to the introduction of redundancy payments and to his own personal pride and joy, the Open university, which changed the nature of education in this country and has been such an assistance to so many who would never otherwise have had access to higher education.
This is a sad day for the House. It is a sad day for our country. But, in particular, our thoughts and our prayers at this moment must be with Lord Wilson's family.

Sir Edward Heath: Harold Wilson was a true House of Commons man. He knew, loved, enjoyed and respected its traditions. Throughout his life, he spent a great deal of time here, not only in the Chamber, but in the Smoking Room, the Tea Room and the Library, talking to his colleagues and to all who enjoyed talking to him, regardless of party. In that, he showed a touch which earned him great respect and admiration.
Harold Wilson never hesitated to tackle problems and he saw them very clearly. He saw the problem of sterling in the late 1960s. He saw the problem of Rhodesia and tried to resolve it. He not only kept us out of Vietnam, but he saw the problems there and tried to bring peace. He saw the problems of joining the European Community. My greatest regret was that we were never able to come to an agreement about that key policy issue.
Harold Wilson was also a master of the media—all of them, television, radio and the press. Occasionally, he had a slight quarrel with a press correspondent whom he regarded as disagreeable, but he was always on top of every medium in which he was performing. That gave him great influence with the general public which he, quite naturally, used to the advantage of his party. But what really endeared the people of this country to him was that they knew from his background, his upbringing and his own life, in which there was hardship, that he was a compassionate man who understood their needs and who was doing his best, often in difficult circumstances, as we have heard, to meet those needs and to ensure that people had a better life. That was his philosophy and his purpose in coming into the House, in being in opposition and in being a Minister.
We were together for 35 years—in confrontation, some would say, for more than 10 years as leaders of our respective parties. I would not say that it was confrontation during that time. It was facing each other and arguing about the problems. I like to think that we were constrained. We were not abusing each other and we were not trying to get cheap results quickly from each other. That was proved by the fact that behind the scenes, we had frequent exchanges about his intentions, the problems and the sorts of things which one cannot always discuss publicly, but which the leader of the other party ought to know about. In that, Harold Wilson was absolutely faithful and we always knew what the purpose of each other's intentions was.
It is sad that at the end of his life, Harold Wilson's illness lasted so long. In regretting his death, we can only be glad that he no longer suffers in that way. We can share the joy of Mary and his family that they, too, know that his achievements are recognised by the House and that, with help from the historians, they will be recognised in due course by the country and by the rest of the world. This country owes a great deal to him. We are grateful and we would like Mary and the family to know that today.

Mr. James Molyneaux: In the mid-1970s, when no one party had a clear majority, it was necessary for me to co-operate with the then Prime Minister, Lord Wilson. We had a kind of unspoken understanding that we did not always take the most direct route to any particular objective and that gained for both of us a distinct reputation. That was illustrated one evening in the Cafeteria, when I had ordered a rather exotic dish of scrambled eggs on toast and Harold had picked up a salad from the other cabinet. He said to me, "Jim, would you mind if I bypassed you up to the cash desk?" I took my empty tray from the rails, did a military two steps back, bowed and said, "Prime Minister, I am delighted to yield to an expert in the art of bypassing." Harold was vastly amused at that, took it as a compliment and invited me to share his table when my scrambled eggs eventually arrived.
This morning, some commentators have been rather less than fair in implying that Lord Wilson had only one guiding principle, that of keeping his party together and keeping it united. There is nothing disreputable about that objective; it is just that some of us are more successful than others.
As the Leader of the Opposition said, Lord Wilson had other principles, mostly based on his non-conformist Christian background. There was, for example, a deep respect for this place, for the traditions of Parliament and for democracy itself. Another principle was revealed to me shortly after he became Prime Minister in 1974. One evening, he invited me to meet him on a one-to-one basis to discuss the position in Ulster arising from the massive electoral rejection of the Sunningdale agreement. I had been stressing the need for sensitivity and caution in a rather volatile situation: there was, for example, talk of a protest strike getting under way. Interrupting all that with a flourish of his pipe, Harold said, "Jim, let me explain that I did not become the Queen's First Minister for the purpose of using the forces of the Crown to suppress the verdict of the ballot box."
Those are not the words of a man with little faith and few principles.

4 pm

Mr. Tony Benn: May I also associate myself with the moving speeches made by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Father of the House about Harold Wilson? May I add a point about Mary Wilson—who, happily, is with us? She supported him throughout his life, and suffered with him all the pains that come to families in public life. I have a feeling that his retirement was a time to which she looked forward. It is sad that he did not enjoy those years of retirement in good health; but she nursed him and cared for him. Therefore, our feelings are rather personal.
Everyone looks back on those whom they knew with their own perspectives. When I arrived in the House, Harold Wilson was President of the Board of Trade. He was never a Back Bencher: that was actually one of his great problems. He did not serve on the Back Benches until he retired. I made that point at his farewell dinner at No. 10. He put that right in the end, however.
Harold Wilson was passionately committed to British industry and technology. He set up the National Research and Development Corporation. He was very keen on that, and also—as the Prime Minister rightly pointed out—on east-west trade. He thought that trade might well have eased the problems of the cold war.
I heard Harold Wilson's resignation speech—only the Father of the House and I will have heard it. He said that the defence burdens that we had been asked to bear were too heavy. I believe that he was right, and that we paid a heavy price; but that is for historians to assess. He then went through a period in the wilderness, which people hardly mention. He was vilified. Hugh Dalton, who spoke very plainly, described him as "Nye's little dog" because he worked with Aneurin Bevan. He stuck it out, however, and always remained loyal to the friends who supported him during that period—including Lady Falkender, who helped him at a time when he had very few friends in the House.
Then Harold Wilson became leader of the party. He made a series of speeches—including the "new Britain" speeches—which were not soundbites but substantial speeches on every subject. I remember him saying to me—I have never forgotten it—"Tony, in the post-industrial age social expenditure will be the engine of economic progress." I think that a very profound comment. He also made a speech that was much laughed at, in which he spoke of the white heat of the technological revolution. He was not saying that he would put on a white coat, go around with a blowlamp and modernise the economy; he was saying something quite different. He was saying, "If we do not have socialist planning of technical change, there will be mass unemployment, and we shall be burnt up in it." History may well record his judgment to be right.
When Harold Wilson became Prime Minister, he renewed his interest in British industry. He really did believe that public investment and public planning were a necessary part of maintaining a manufacturing base, and I am sure that history will see sense in that.
Undoubtedly, as has been said, Harold Wilson will be remembered in future centuries for the Open university, which he fought through against great opposition. Arnold Goodman, who died the other day, was used to help Jennie Lee to bring that about. As the Prime Minister said, the Open university provided opportunities for people who would never have had access to higher education, including pensioners.
Harold Wilson worked with all wings of the party. Every Prime Minister must think that his Cabinet is difficult, but think of Harold's Cabinet. Two of its members were former members of the Communist party—Lord Healey and Edmund Dell. Two deputy leaders left the party—Roy Jenkins and George Brown. His Minister of Transport, Dick Marsh, joined the Tory party; Christopher Mayhew joined the Liberal party. He stuck it out.
Harold believed in close links with trade unions. He appointed the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union to be his first Minister of Technology. He believed what Ian Mikardo always said, that, "Every bird needs a left wing and a right wing and it can't fly on its right wing alone."
I had fierce arguments with Harold Wilson, but when I look back, they were family rows in a spirit of great friendship, and I look back on him with enormous affection because all my ministerial offices, except for the last one, I owe to him.
Like all Prime Ministers, Harold Wilson worried about plots. That is not uncommon. I asked him once, when the plot stories were thickening, "Harold, what shall we do if you are knocked down by a bus?" and Harold said, "Find out who was driving the bus."

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I would first like to join other right hon. Members in expressing my sympathy to Mary Wilson. She has gone through a very long period of great stress, and the months and years that preceded Harold's death have not been easy for her. Now she has to live with her bereavement, and I am sure that the House will want her to know that all our thoughts are with her.
I suppose that, of the people who are now present in the House, I knew Harold Wilson better than anyone. For five years, as a member of his staff in No. 10 Downing street, I spent almost every day with him, conversing with him, enjoying his confidence, sharing that mutual loyalty that Harold provided for those very few people whom he trusted completely.
It did mean that one had to go through certain ordeals. One of them was Harold's pipe. Stories arose in the press that Harold in private never smoked a pipe but that he smoked cigars instead. I only wish that that had been true. To get out of a sleeping compartment of a train in the early hours of the morning and enter a closed car with Harold lighting up immediately was not the best way to start a day. I remember Mary saying on many occasions, "Oh, Harold, do stop kippering us," but he never paid attention to her.
The other aspect of Harold's private life that was both legendary and true was HP Sauce. He was bewildered by the propensity of Roy Jenkins to go out and have dinner in fashionable restaurants. He could not understand why anyone would want anything more than to sit down at a table in the Downing street kitchen with a plate of steak and chips smothered with HP Sauce.
Unlike many politicians who have followed him, Harold wrote his own speeches. He used to stride up and down the study in No. 10 Downing street, dictating to a succession of secretaries. When the transcript was brought in to him, he would correct it with the green ink that he had always used ever since he was first in the Cabinet. Harold prepared his speeches with meticulous care, and was always extremely careful about the effect that he could create with them.
When Harold was having one of his not infrequent differences of opinion with the BBC, he prepared a speech at the Labour party conference, rose to his feet as leader and Prime Minister, and was greeted with the most

enormous ovation by the assembled delegates. Then, after waiting carefully for every last vestige of applause to die down, he said, "I suppose the BBC news tonight will describe that as a cool reception." He then got another ovation.
Harold planned ahead in many ways. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) may remember receiving a letter that I sent to him when I was a junior Minister at the Department of the Environment in charge of the Government car service—possibly the most powerful position in any Government apart from that of Prime Minister.
I received a direct minute from the Prime Minister—it was very rare for the Prime Minister to send such a minute to a junior Minister—instructing me to write to all former Prime Ministers still living offering them a car and a chauffeur. I then realised that Harold had definitely decided to resign.
Harold was an extremely accessible Prime Minister. Every Tuesday and Thursday, after Question Time at 3.30 pm, his door was open for two hours to any Labour Member who cared to call upon him. I believe that he was ready to see Conservatives as well in certain circumstances. He was an extraordinarily kind man. During one reshuffle, he had decided to sack from the Government for a lack of highly visible competence a junior Minister called Charlie Loughlin. He then heard that Charlie's daughter had died in a car crash. That was the end of the sacking of Charlie Loughlin.
Harold had great ideals. He had an enormous love for the state of Israel. In his latter years, he wrote a book about it and sent his son to a kibbutz there. He had a great affinity with the then Prime Minister, Golda Meir.
Of all the things that have been said about him, and of all the things that he has done, the achievement of which Harold was most proud was that he was the first Prime Minister this century under whom expenditure on education became greater than expenditure on defence. He believed in education, and he believed in Parliament. He believed in democracy, and he left democracy firmer and more secure then when he first became Prime Minister.

Mr. David Harris: As is well known, Harold and Mary Wilson have had a house on the Isles of Scilly in my constituency for many years, and I know that my constituents, the Scillonians, would like me to pay tribute to Lord Wilson, and to echo the words of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who paid tribute to the way in which Lady Wilson nursed Lord Wilson through the last sad years of his life. It was my privilege and pleasure on a number of occasions to call at the bungalow on St. Mary's, the standard of Trinity house flying proudly above it, to see both of them.
I can tell you and the House, Madam Speaker, that the people of the Isles of Scilly love Lady Wilson. She has made a truly remarkable impact on them. They hold her very dear. Of course, they always saw the value of Lord Wilson, particularly during his premiership, because he was a major tourist asset to the islands. I am not sure that that persuaded quite all of them to vote Labour in various elections. Lady Wilson is not just respected, but held in the highest regard.
To give just one personal reminiscence; when I was a very young reporter, I had my first big break covering the 1964 general election. I followed Harold Wilson literally everywhere around the country. Strange as it may seem now, in those days very few newspapers or television cameras did that. I was present at the famous meeting in Chatham to which the Leader of the Opposition referred.
At the end of the campaign, when the results were coming through, we were in the Adelphi hotel. One can see how times have changed, because the few of us who had followed Harold Wilson around were in his bedroom. He was stretched out on the bed, and I think that he was puffing on his pipe. He turned to me and said, "David, you have followed me all around the country, and you are still a damned Tory." In that, as in some other things, he was right.

Mr. Alfred Morris: This is indeed a day of deep sadness for everyone who knew Harold and had the privilege of working with him. In a very brief tribute, I want to start with a statement of fact. The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, whose 25th anniversary is being celebrated in many parts of Britain this week, would never have become law had it not been for Harold Wilson. He gave the Bill a very powerful helping hand. In a moment of decisive importance, he decided on the dissolution that ended the 1966–67 Parliament, and gave the Bill preference over many others, including seven of his own, in order to ensure the Bill's enactment.
The late and much respected James Margach, the parliamentary correspondent for many years of The Sunday Times, spoke of the utter genuineness of Harold Wilson's concern to make life better for disabled people, their families and their carers. He was utterly right to do so.
In his memoirs, Harold made it clear that the entirely new initiatives he took as Prime Minister to enhance the status and improve the well-being of the weak and vulnerable gave him more satisfaction than any other initiative he took over the whole area of social policy. For that, his death will be widely mourned among severely disabled and other needful people. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, he was an extraordinarily caring man, and his memory will be cherished by us all.
I hope that Mary and the family will be comforted by the deeply heartfelt tributes that have come this afternoon from all parts of the House.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Above all, Harold Wilson was a unifying force. He took over a divided party in 1962, but by 1964 he had turned it into a party of government. One reason for that was that he was prepared to accept people from all sides. He had in his Cabinet people who he knew were not admirers of him, but whom he had selected for their ability. It was a question not of friendship, but of whether they were the right people for the job.
Before the 1964 election, Harold made a number of keynote speeches. One party had been in government for a long time, and the country was looking for a change. However, he did not simply allow it to drift into change:

he embraced the features of the day—in particular, new technology and science. In a speech, he showed how they could be harnessed for the benefit of people, radier than putting people on to the scrap heap.
Harold Wilson was trusted by ordinary people. He believed that a great deal of talent had gone to waste. That is why, as has been said today, among his memorials will be the Open university, which gave many people a chance in life that they had not previously had. It allowed them to develop and fulfil their capabilities.
Harold Wilson also had a great knowledge covering many areas. Many people from the arts and from sport visited him while he was at No. 10. He was knowledgeable about Yorkshire cricket, and once referred to Fred Trueman as the greatest living Yorkshireman.
I remember that Harold came to help me in 1979. He said, "What are we doing?" It was about lunchtime, so I said we would go in the pub for a pint and a pie. In the pub were many people on a break from their offices or factories, and they came to join us. He spoke to many of them. I introduced him to a young woman, aged about 25, from Huddersfield, and he snowed his knowledge not only of Huddersfield, but of Huddersfield football. He referred to the three great Huddersfield teams of the 1920s, but when he began to name each member of those teams, I am afraid that the young lady's eyes glazed over, and everybody left the table.
Harold Wilson never forgot whence he came. That was his great attribute. He has been described as a pragmatist, but he was also a man of great beliefs. He had a great understanding of ordinary people, and people trusted him and, in fact, related to him when he was Prime Minister. I shall remember the ordinary things that he did. His pipe has been referred to, but along with his pipe went his raincoat. They became symbols of a caricature, but one that related to ordinary people and their lives.
Throughout Harold's extremely distinguished career, even before he became a politician, he was always interested in ordinary people. Imprinted on him were the hard times that people went through in the 1930s. Indeed, Harold's father, despite the fact that he was a scientist, lost his job in the recession, and times were very difficult for the Wilson family. He believed that, in the post-war era, people should never again suffer the indignities of unemployment or the difficulties caused to families under those conditions.
I join the tribute paid to Mary. Her devotion to Harold all through his life, especially in the latter years when he was not very well, was dedicated and caring. We all owe a debt to her for what she did for Harold. As for Harold, he not only won four elections: he carved for himself a niche in history. As we reflect on his years and what he did for the country, his stature will grow and grow, and he will be remembered as one of the great Prime Ministers of the century.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I wish to associate my hon. Friends in the Scottish National party and our colleagues in its sister party Plaid Cymru with the genuine and heartfelt tributes paid to Lord Wilson. We send our kind thoughts and sympathy to Lady Wilson and her family.
I remember being a Member in the early 1970s when Sir Harold was Prime Minister. People have already recounted the kindness that he extended to people in his party and other parties. I too remember that kindness. I also remember many of the phrases he used from the Dispatch Box, which have become part of modern political vocabulary and are part of the inheritance that we owe to him.
Tribute has rightly been paid to the Open university, the creation of which Sir Harold and Jennie Lee steered through the House, and which has been welcomed by so many thousands of people, not least in more remote areas such as my constituency, where the facility to study through the Open university has been a great boon to our communities.
I would also like to mention—it has not been said already—that in 1965, under the premiership of Sir Harold, the Highlands and Islands development board was established, which many of us in Scotland remember with great affection. The board was—I think—the brainchild of the late Willie Ross, whom many of us called basso profondo when he was Secretary of State for Scotland, but it was established under the premiership of Sir Harold.
Many of us in the highlands and islands have a great respect and affection for that organisation. The appointment of Tom Fraser as its first chairman may have caused a by-election result in 1967 which Sir Harold did not enjoy, but at the end of the day, the establishment of the HIDB and its successor body was very welcome in our area of Scotland.

Mr. Edward O'Hara: In associating myself with the condolences and the eloquent and deserved tributes which have been paid so far, may I express a few remarks on behalf of the people of my home town of Huyton, whom Harold represented with such distinction for so many years, and of Knowsley, South constituency Labour party—my home party—the successor party to Huyton.
Harold Wilson was synonymous with Huyton, as I have found in many places, no matter how far afield. Say "Huyton", and the immediate response is "Harold Wilson". Harold was loved by the people of Huyton, no less than he was admired by them. What endeared him to them? He had a common touch and a ready wit, and perhaps one of the greatest tributes that can be paid to him was that the wit of Harold Wilson, the Yorkshireman, was so widely admired by Scousers.
I remember much badinage in private in the bar of Huyton Labour club, but I fear that, if I repeated it in the House, it might not pass your rules on parliamentary language, Madam Speaker. Harold Wilson had no side and no false humility, but he had remarkable attributes. He understood the people of Huyton and the ordinary people of this country, their lives and concerns, and was superbly equipped as a Member of Parliament and as a Prime Minister with intellect, political skills and a deep social commitment to addressing those concerns, as has been said.
Many ordinary people in this country today perhaps do not adequately realise what they owe him. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) gave an

impressive list of Harold Wilson's achievements, which it behoves us all to recognise this day, but they were his achievements on behalf of the ordinary people, which gave them benefits and opportunities that we hope that they will recognise today—benefits in work, their social lives and educational opportunities.
Harold Wilson was a product of the state education system, and I know from talking to him in Huyton that education was always high among his political priorities. Indeed, when I asked him what was his proudest achievement, he said without hesitation, "The Open university," which gives so many people opportunities today.
I will not detain the House overlong, but I wish to say that, to me, Harold Wilson was a man of the people. He lived for the people, and was loved by the people—the ordinary people, by whom he will be sadly mourned this day, and no more so than by the people of Knowsley, South and Huyton.

Mr. George Howarth: I first joined the Labour party in Huyton in the 1960s, and a substantial part of my constituency came from the old Huyton constituency, when it was formed in 1983. The greater part of that constituency went to Knowsley, South.
Harold Wilson was held in enormous respect and affection in Knowsley, both for his achievements nationally, to which many hon. Members have referred, and for his work as a constituency Member of Parliament. It is the measure of that affection that he was always known locally simply as "Harold". Although originating from Yorkshire, he became intimately associated with Merseyside and with the spirit of the 1960s and all that that period held, particularly for the people of Liverpool and the surrounding area.
Despite his achievements, Harold Wilson remained a man wholly without affectation. It was for that quality that the people of Huyton and Merseyside held him so dear, and for those reasons that he will be missed so much.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: I was a young student at the London School of Economics in 1962 when Harold Wilson became the leader of the Labour party, and many of us forget what enormous charisma and power Harold had for my generation. He brought me and many others of my generation into the Labour party with his vision of a classless society, and an end to a society that depended more on connections than on ability.
Harold touched my life in another way, because I was one of the original Open university tutors, and I was grateful to Harold when I was a young and struggling university teacher. When I became the Member of Parliament for Huddersfield, it was with some surprise that I was adopted by Harold. He took a great interest in Huddersfield, and I tried to live up to his expectations. I looked for his maiden speech when I arrived here to get some clues, but he never made one. His first speech in the House was as a Minister, on Members' pay and allowances.
Everyone knew of Harold's fondness for Huddersfield, and many people have referred to it. I was privileged, because he often came to the town. Following a phone


call, Mary would kindly organise the visit, and we had some splendid days together. I can remember one occasion in a Huddersfield hotel when Harold was trying to get the autograph of Bill Owen—Compo in "Last of the Summer Wine"—while Bill Owen tried to get Harold's autograph.
Harold would meet people with whom he had gone to Royds Hall grammar school, and people who had lived on the same street as him. He had a phenomenal memory for their backgrounds, their relatives and everything about them. As everyone has said today, he had that common touch. Many people become famous and move on—they might refer on "Desert Island Discs" to their place of origin—but Harold made sure that he went back and helped.
There would not have been a polytechnic in Huddersfield, which is now a thriving university, if it had not been for Harold making darn sure that there was one, and it is the largest wealth-creating institution in my town today. I saw that the people of Huddersfield loved him, and he loved them.
Harold Wilson was able to carry out the work that he did only with the support of Mary and his family. The last time I saw Harold was at the silver anniversary of the Open university. He was then very ill, but he was there, and he was proud. His family were proud with him, and I pay tribute to them and to him today.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As a long-serving Conservative Back-Bench Member, I should like to pay tribute to Lord Wilson, and to express my sympathy to Mary and to his family. As the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said, Lord Wilson served for very few years on the Back Benches. But I can say—as an evergreen Back Bencher—that Harold Wilson valued Back Benchers in this House. Harold Wilson understood this House. Harold Wilson commanded this House. Harold Wilson was a compassionate and caring man, who was highly respected and will be long remembered.

Mr. Colin Pickthall: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a word about Harold Wilson on behalf of the people of Ormskirk, where—as the Prime Minister rightly pointed out—Lord Wilson began his parliamentary career. Many older people in my constituency remember Harold Wilson not as a pre-eminent politician, but as the young candidate in 1945 and the young Member of Parliament thereafter.
People in the rural areas of my constituency, and in small villages and hamlets such as Banks and Scarisbrick, recall Harold Wilson standing on soap boxes in the middle

of nowhere and conjuring up street meetings. That habit died down thereafter, but it was revived again in 1992 with some success.
Elderly people in the area will open their drawers and get out faded photographs from those days of themselves in their gardens with Harold Wilson. He is remembered in the Ormskirk area with enormous affection for his courteous approach to everybody and his down-to-earth manner. He never lost the ability to relate closely to the working people he represented.
The last time I spoke to Lord Wilson was in the 1983 general election campaign, when I chaired a public meeting in Ormskirk, to which he returned to speak on behalf of the then candidate, Josie Farrington, now Baroness Farrington. As he came in, somebody said, "It's not Harold Wilson, it's Mike Yarwood," and he said, "Yes, that's right," and left everyone in total confusion for the rest of the evening. Despite his failing health on that evening, he made a superb and witty speech. His memory had not failed, and he recalled in detail both the geography of the area from 30 years before and the people in the Ormskirk district. He had a clear grasp of its economic difficulties, and he answered questions with much of his old flair.
My right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party mentioned Harold Wilson's response to the lady with the crying baby in one of his audiences. I must tell my right hon. Friend that he used that line again at that meeting in 1983. Furthermore, I have used it since, and I have heard Baroness Farrington use it, which goes to show that, when one has a good line, one should not let go of it.
Many of us will remember many of Harold Wilson's good lines. I am sure that many Labour Members have sat at the front of Labour party meetings, and will remember Harold's great line when he was in trouble at conference: "I know what's going on: I'm going on."
Lord Wilson was a distinguished Yorkshireman, but his political life was centred in west Lancashire and Merseyside. In our area, we remain proud of our association with him and of what he achieved and became. We remember with enormous satisfaction that he managed to win four elections for the Labour party. Those of us who were young in the 1960s will always associate those exciting and stimulating years with his premiership.
Like other speakers this afternoon, I wish to extend the deep sympathies of the people of west Lancashire to Mary and his family.

Madam Speaker: Thank you.
The House has heard the tributes to Lord Wilson, and I wish to make only one point, which has been touched on by many right hon. and hon. Members today. In my view, one of Harold Wilson's lasting achievements was to bring into being the Open university, of which I have the honour to be the current chancellor.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Five o'clock.